4 ms·

Twitter had to convert their stack from Ruby to Java for a reason. Microsoft IMO does what Java does but even better, especially now that they are opening thems

Twitter had to convert their stack from Ruby to Java for a reason. Microsoft IMO does what Java does but even better, especially now that they are opening themselves up to open source tech and JavaScript (they are investors in jQuery, Knockout.js, and Anders the man behind C# has now created TypeScript for them). I'm not loyal to no one, especially Microsoft, and I feel they finally realize this. Yes, there is a reason their stack costs some scratch, but because I see them as a very strong business partner to have I don't mind taking a bite out of their dogfood whenever it's the right choice for my project. But hey haters gonna hate, right? But you know what haters don't do? Make big-boy money.

samspenc 13y ago
I believe Google does NOT use MS products, and I hear they make close to 66% of total MS revenue these days. ;)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nivla 13y ago
  I don't think it is possible for a company as large as Google to completely avoid using Windows products. As an example, here is the video of the tour of Google's Data Center and around the 1:08 mark, you can clearly see them using Windows XP [1]. However if you meant to say they don't use it in their core services, I can imagine that. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyFhZTSnPg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyFhZTSnPg
sz4kerto 13y ago
Java is very different ecosystem to the .Net world. First, the VMs have have been more performant on the Java side (this might have changed very recently, but this was definitely the case 2-3 years ago). Second, there's a big OSS world around Java, and a not as big one around .Net. Third, Java-OSX/Linux, .Net-Windows. I think the .Net framework and language one of MS's best products in decades. Heljsberg is brilliant. :)
- guiomie 13y ago
  "First, the VMs have have been more performant on the Java side (this might have changed very recently, but this was definitely the case 2-3 years ago)" ... why write it, if this argument isn't valid anymore ? I thought it was a known fact these days, the CLR out-performs the JVM ...
ebbv 13y ago
This might be the worst comment I've ever read on HN.
- recursive 13y ago
  Cleverly self-referential.
  - ebbv 13y ago
    Right. > But hey haters gonna hate, right? But you know what haters don't do? Make big-boy money. I couldn't come up with something that douchey if I spent all day trying.
dingaling 13y ago
Beyond the toolbox, though, I would need to investigate the platform costs of scaling MS technology. For Microsoft, there would be a licensing cost not only for each instance of the OS but also the supporting systems ( SQL Server, VM Manager etc ). I don't have much insight into those costs but at $WORK it is one of the drivers for moving as much portable code to Linux VMs as possible, even at the technical and organisational cost of a split development environment. The Big Apps remain .Net on MS, since that's how they were written, but everyone else is pushed to OSS.
CountSessine 13y ago
It should be noted that the biggest dog-fooder of the Microsoft web stack - Microsoft online services and Bing - has never been able to make big-boy money.

samspenc 13y ago

I believe Google does NOT use MS products, and I hear they make close to 66% of total MS revenue these days. ;)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nivla 13y ago
I don't think it is possible for a company as large as Google to completely avoid using Windows products. As an example, here is the video of the tour of Google's Data Center and around the 1:08 mark, you can clearly see them using Windows XP [1]. However if you meant to say they don't use it in their core services, I can imagine that. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyFhZTSnPg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNyFhZTSnPg

sz4kerto 13y ago

Java is very different ecosystem to the .Net world. First, the VMs have have been more performant on the Java side (this might have changed very recently, but this was definitely the case 2-3 years ago). Second, there's a big OSS world around Java, and a not as big one around .Net. Third, Java-OSX/Linux, .Net-Windows. I think the .Net framework and language one of MS's best products in decades. Heljsberg is brilliant. :)

guiomie 13y ago
"First, the VMs have have been more performant on the Java side (this might have changed very recently, but this was definitely the case 2-3 years ago)" ... why write it, if this argument isn't valid anymore ? I thought it was a known fact these days, the CLR out-performs the JVM ...

ebbv 13y ago

This might be the worst comment I've ever read on HN.

recursive 13y ago
Cleverly self-referential.
- ebbv 13y ago
  Right. > But hey haters gonna hate, right? But you know what haters don't do? Make big-boy money. I couldn't come up with something that douchey if I spent all day trying.

dingaling 13y ago

Beyond the toolbox, though, I would need to investigate the platform costs of scaling MS technology. For Microsoft, there would be a licensing cost not only for each instance of the OS but also the supporting systems ( SQL Server, VM Manager etc ). I don't have much insight into those costs but at $WORK it is one of the drivers for moving as much portable code to Linux VMs as possible, even at the technical and organisational cost of a split development environment. The Big Apps remain .Net on MS, since that's how they were written, but everyone else is pushed to OSS.

CountSessine 13y ago

It should be noted that the biggest dog-fooder of the Microsoft web stack - Microsoft online services and Bing - has never been able to make big-boy money.