4 ms·
The thing is I'm sure there's a very good reason his company mandates a Windows stack for all the development he's doing - the MS dev stack (for the most part)
by gum_ina_package 13y ago
The thing is I'm sure there's a very good reason his company mandates a Windows stack for all the development he's doing - the MS dev stack (for the most part) will not break when you update your system, install a new patch, upgrade your .NET framework, etc. etc.
Personally I can't stand Windows for web development (although Node looks awesome in VS), but there's advantages to both. The author seems to express regret and a feeling he missed out, but would he have become a better developer for embracing the alternatives he mentioned? Would he really have been able to get his work done better and more efficiently? He didn't provide any evidence of this.
- mattmcknight 13y agoWhat other stack would break when you update your .NET framework or update your system? I don't see that as very valid reason, most stacks have dependency management tools. The one thing you save with the MS stack is time spent choosing and evaluating tools, you just pick whatever MS is offering.
- gum_ina_package 13y agoWhat I meant was that, from my experience, updating/upgrading an open source tech stack usually causes the application it's running to break. I end up spending a day or two fixing things, where with a MS stack that rarely happens.