3 ms·

The startup where I work was started by business types but we're using Python. Although I have to admit that at times it is hard to find experienced Python deve

The startup where I work was started by business types but we're using Python. Although I have to admit that at times it is hard to find experienced Python developers (so we gave up on the Python part and started looking for experienced developers period. Turns out Python is pretty easy to learn). My biggest problem with ASP.NET (and the reason I would pick Java over it if I had to use one of the two) is that it only runs on Windows (I keep hearing about this Mono thing but to me that still feels like a hack).

tx 19y ago
Depends on how you look at it. Windows Server 2003 is not a bad server OS and properly written and deployed ASP.NET application will be able to handle TONS of requests. Two reasons: native code execution (.NET caches compiled code in memory) and very efficient threading. This thought may be unpopular but it does not make it less true. However, as a struggling one-two person startup, you probably will not want to pay crazy prices for dedicated windows hosting (Win2003 server+MSSQL). And shared Windows hosting is always crap: overloaded servers, terrible performance, etc. Basically, Windows platform is not very startup-friendly: you develop slower (thus will take you longer, i.e. you'll bleed more money) and later it will cost you more to host your app. Besides, a proper set of Visual Studio + MSDN subscription is not exactly cheap. For well-funded startups .NET makes more economic sense: easier to hire for and performs/scales well (myspace).
- hello_moto 19y ago
  Actually the upcoming Windows Server 2008 Web Edition cost around $500 bucks. I know it still can't beat free but heh, it's better than spending thousands of dollars. SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition cost $50 bucks (SQL Dev Ed is basically Enterprise Ed with license restriction). I hope in the future MS will lower the prices for most of their stuffs.
- mxh 19y ago
  ... but, aside from the higher tool cost, slower development time, and more expensive hosting, it's great? I don't think performance is really a reason to pick the MSFT stack; MySpace does use it, proving that it can scale, but there are many more cases of web-scale systems built on open-source tech. So that's, at best, a push. It is easier to find warm bodies for a MSFT shop than, say, a Python shop. But, as a startup, are you looking for 5 great guys, or 50 mediocre ones? And do you really think it's easier to find 5 great MSFT guys than 5 great Python (or Ruby, or Java, or even LISP/Haskell/Erlang) guys? The last point seems debatable to me, the others, less so.

tx 19y ago

Depends on how you look at it. Windows Server 2003 is not a bad server OS and properly written and deployed ASP.NET application will be able to handle TONS of requests. Two reasons: native code execution (.NET caches compiled code in memory) and very efficient threading. This thought may be unpopular but it does not make it less true. However, as a struggling one-two person startup, you probably will not want to pay crazy prices for dedicated windows hosting (Win2003 server+MSSQL). And shared Windows hosting is always crap: overloaded servers, terrible performance, etc. Basically, Windows platform is not very startup-friendly: you develop slower (thus will take you longer, i.e. you'll bleed more money) and later it will cost you more to host your app. Besides, a proper set of Visual Studio + MSDN subscription is not exactly cheap. For well-funded startups .NET makes more economic sense: easier to hire for and performs/scales well (myspace).

hello_moto 19y ago
Actually the upcoming Windows Server 2008 Web Edition cost around $500 bucks. I know it still can't beat free but heh, it's better than spending thousands of dollars. SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition cost $50 bucks (SQL Dev Ed is basically Enterprise Ed with license restriction). I hope in the future MS will lower the prices for most of their stuffs.
mxh 19y ago
... but, aside from the higher tool cost, slower development time, and more expensive hosting, it's great? I don't think performance is really a reason to pick the MSFT stack; MySpace does use it, proving that it can scale, but there are many more cases of web-scale systems built on open-source tech. So that's, at best, a push. It is easier to find warm bodies for a MSFT shop than, say, a Python shop. But, as a startup, are you looking for 5 great guys, or 50 mediocre ones? And do you really think it's easier to find 5 great MSFT guys than 5 great Python (or Ruby, or Java, or even LISP/Haskell/Erlang) guys? The last point seems debatable to me, the others, less so.