5 ms·

I’m curious if .NET can compare here, though I have limited experience with rails or ASP.NET both seem to give you a lot to work with. Though the overlap of rai

I’m curious if .NET can compare here, though I have limited experience with rails or ASP.NET both seem to give you a lot to work with. Though the overlap of rails devs with .NET devs seems minimal.

sanex 1y ago
I learned to code professionally in Ruby but wrote C# .Net for almost 10 years. I've probably forgotten more about .Net than I ever learned about Ruby at this point so take what I say with a grain of salt. .Net has tons of configuration and boilerplate so I can't say that it's exactly the same in that sense, but the more meta theme is that just as there is a Rails way to do things, there is a Microsoft way to do things. Unlike Java where you're relying on lots of third party packages that while well maintained, aren't owned by the same company that does the language, framework, ORM, database, cloud provider, IDE and so on. Having a solid well documented default option that will work for 99% of use cases takes a lot of the load of decision making off your shoulders and also means you'll have plenty of solid documentation and examples you can follow. I've been in JVM land for the past couple years and it just can't compare. I know Java people will come fight with me after this but I just don't think they know any better.
- dullcrisp 1y ago
  I think the Java people would say that if you want one way to do things, go do it the Microsoft way :) But I guess Spring tried to do that, but probably didn't have the resources that Microsoft does.
  - sanex 1y ago
    I wish I could :)
- throwawax295 1y ago
  I don't want to fight you, because I don't know .Net well enough to have an opinion. But I just want to say that I have the same feel when I develop using Spring Boot. I am extremely productive and seldom have to pull dependencies outside Spring for 80% of what I make.
jayd16 1y ago
Asp.net core is actually pretty simple to stand up and bang something out. Stick to the Microsoft docs and most patterns are handled. I can't really say how the web UI side holds up to alternatives, tho.
hnhn34 1y ago
I still don't get why .NET barely ever gets mentioned in these threads. Even new or niche frameworks like Phoenix, loco.rs and others get mentioned, but almost never .NET. It's as "convention over configuration" as it gets.
- dqv 1y ago
  Platform support and open-sourcedness. The Phoenix 1.0 release predates the first open-source and Linux-supported .NET release by a year, for example. .NET is just now starting to shake off its association as a closed-source, Windows-only thing.
  - dgellow 1y ago
    .NET has been open source since a decade
    - adamors 1y ago
      And Ruby on Rails was released 20 years ago
    - dqv 1y ago
      Yes, like I said before, Phoenix 1.0 predates the first open-source and Linux-supported .NET release by a year. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10135825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10135825 https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/release-notes%2F1.0%2F1.0.0.md https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/release-notes%2F1.0... People aren't just going to jump onto something recently open-sourced by a company that popularized the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish". For the last decade, they've had to earn people's goodwill, while with a project like Rails, there is no "we used to be closed source but now we're not, use our thing!" to overcome. So in the 20 years since Rails has been released, it has only ever needed to demonstrate its usefulness. Now that a decade has past, that negative association is starting to wash away a little.
tonyedgecombe 1y ago
The only thing I don't like about ASP.NET is all the dependency injection, last time I looked it seemed unavoidable.
kristianp 1y ago
I hated asp.net mvc, I think due to the large amount of layers and boilerplate that had to be banged out.
- neonsunset 1y ago
  FWIW MVC is completely optional nowadays. Take a look at this: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/minimal-apis https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/m...
  - kristianp 1y ago
    Thanks for that link. If I'm not wrong, it doesn't change the fact that compared to Rails or Django there's a lot of boilerplate that needs to be written to get a database-driven web app running.
    - neonsunset 1y ago
      What makes you think this way? I’m pretty sure even back then Entity Framework was very capable, it has only improved since then. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/querying/complex-query-operators https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/querying/complex-q... It’s probably better to compare with other statically typed, compiled languages since both Ruby and Python are an in a different class (and an order of magnitude slower, more painful dependency management, etc.).

I’m curious if .NET can compare here, though I have limited experience with rails or ASP.NET both seem to give you a lot to work with. Though the overlap of rails devs with .NET devs seems minimal.

sanex 1y ago

I learned to code professionally in Ruby but wrote C# .Net for almost 10 years. I've probably forgotten more about .Net than I ever learned about Ruby at this point so take what I say with a grain of salt. .Net has tons of configuration and boilerplate so I can't say that it's exactly the same in that sense, but the more meta theme is that just as there is a Rails way to do things, there is a Microsoft way to do things. Unlike Java where you're relying on lots of third party packages that while well maintained, aren't owned by the same company that does the language, framework, ORM, database, cloud provider, IDE and so on. Having a solid well documented default option that will work for 99% of use cases takes a lot of the load of decision making off your shoulders and also means you'll have plenty of solid documentation and examples you can follow. I've been in JVM land for the past couple years and it just can't compare. I know Java people will come fight with me after this but I just don't think they know any better.

dullcrisp 1y ago
I think the Java people would say that if you want one way to do things, go do it the Microsoft way :) But I guess Spring tried to do that, but probably didn't have the resources that Microsoft does.
- sanex 1y ago
  I wish I could :)
throwawax295 1y ago
I don't want to fight you, because I don't know .Net well enough to have an opinion. But I just want to say that I have the same feel when I develop using Spring Boot. I am extremely productive and seldom have to pull dependencies outside Spring for 80% of what I make.

jayd16 1y ago

Asp.net core is actually pretty simple to stand up and bang something out. Stick to the Microsoft docs and most patterns are handled. I can't really say how the web UI side holds up to alternatives, tho.

hnhn34 1y ago

I still don't get why .NET barely ever gets mentioned in these threads. Even new or niche frameworks like Phoenix, loco.rs and others get mentioned, but almost never .NET. It's as "convention over configuration" as it gets.

dqv 1y ago
Platform support and open-sourcedness. The Phoenix 1.0 release predates the first open-source and Linux-supported .NET release by a year, for example. .NET is just now starting to shake off its association as a closed-source, Windows-only thing.
- dgellow 1y ago
  .NET has been open source since a decade
  - adamors 1y ago
    And Ruby on Rails was released 20 years ago
  - dqv 1y ago
    Yes, like I said before, Phoenix 1.0 predates the first open-source and Linux-supported .NET release by a year. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10135825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10135825 https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/release-notes%2F1.0%2F1.0.0.md https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/release-notes%2F1.0... People aren't just going to jump onto something recently open-sourced by a company that popularized the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish". For the last decade, they've had to earn people's goodwill, while with a project like Rails, there is no "we used to be closed source but now we're not, use our thing!" to overcome. So in the 20 years since Rails has been released, it has only ever needed to demonstrate its usefulness. Now that a decade has past, that negative association is starting to wash away a little.

tonyedgecombe 1y ago

The only thing I don't like about ASP.NET is all the dependency injection, last time I looked it seemed unavoidable.

kristianp 1y ago

I hated asp.net mvc, I think due to the large amount of layers and boilerplate that had to be banged out.

neonsunset 1y ago
FWIW MVC is completely optional nowadays. Take a look at this: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/minimal-apis https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/m...
- kristianp 1y ago
  Thanks for that link. If I'm not wrong, it doesn't change the fact that compared to Rails or Django there's a lot of boilerplate that needs to be written to get a database-driven web app running.
  - neonsunset 1y ago
    What makes you think this way? I’m pretty sure even back then Entity Framework was very capable, it has only improved since then. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/querying/complex-query-operators https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/querying/complex-q... It’s probably better to compare with other statically typed, compiled languages since both Ruby and Python are an in a different class (and an order of magnitude slower, more painful dependency management, etc.).