5 ms·

A more accurate title would be "Why Jet didn't choose C#" as they don't seem to pay any attention to the non-Windows stacks available. I'm still no closer to u

A more accurate title would be "Why Jet didn't choose C#" as they don't seem to pay any attention to the non-Windows stacks available. I'm still no closer to understanding why they would build a startup on a MS stack, a question I've been pondering for the past year and a half.

bsdpython 11y ago
A lot of the NYC area financial firms use Microsoft technologies. If you are a developer at one of these firms and looking to leave to join a startup then there's your chance to jump. At least that is the way they've explained it to me. I don't use any MS technologies myself but that doesn't make it an invalid choice.
eonw 11y ago
i think in this case, they were funded before they started so cost wasnt an issue. versus most startups that start with little or no cash, so the idea of MS licensing is not even open for conversation. i dont really think of jet as a startup in the classical sense. its just a new company with lots of funding, it sure wasnt bootstrapped. IMO, its going to be a flop. their prices arent competitive for the items i have searched.
AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
Because it started with the CEO making a WCF service. Meaning he knew .NET and stuck with what was comfortable - just like StackOverflow's origin. Best to keep to what you know when you are starting something risky - and there is nothing wrong with the MS stack for this sort of thing.
- vanessa98 11y ago
  Did you mean "a WTF service"?
  - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
    Although I havent worked with WCF for sometime (Web API is all the rage now), WCF wasnt too bad. Pretty good for making REST services, if you wanted absolute control. They streamlined a lot of the configuration needs in 3.5 and 4.
  - umanwizard 11y ago
    Not sure if you're just joking or don't know what WCF is, but in case the latter is true: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082(v=vs.110).aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082(v=vs.110)....
    - vanessa98 11y ago
      Can it be both?
- morgante 11y ago
  > Because it started with the CEO making a WCF service. The CTO, not the CEO. From what I understand, you are in fact correct though. The CTO happened to be a MS guy, so the whole company had to be MS.
Sanddancer 11y ago
Because if you want good support, such as OS lifecycles longer than a couple years, they're actually fairly inexpensive. RHEL starts at $350 a year to get you the same kind and length of support you'll get from a $300 MS subscription. Yes, the retail price for an MS OS is high, but if you're going to be doing server deployments, you'll be getting your software from direct resellers, who do provide much more reasonable prices.
uptownJimmy 11y ago
I honestly believe the burden of proof is the other way around: why would they NOT use the MS stack? Cobbling together a stack from component parts is not my idea of a productive day, though I do understand the attraction it has for some developers, and I do understand how it made a lot of sense, until recently, for those doing some bootstrapping. I've dabbled in various OSS technologies, and I cannot for the life if me figure out why anyone attempting something big would automatically choose anything OSS over Java EE or .NET, at this point. The cost to entry with .NET is basically zero these days, and it is a seriously powerful dev stack.
- hactually 11y ago
  Seriously? The cost of the MS stack doesn't tend towards zero by any means infact it normally increases as you throw more hardware at it. Yes MS can hook you on the BizNet stuff but you have to pay at some point. Why waste the money when the alternatives are better and cheaper. What does buying MS actually buy you?
  - UK-AL 11y ago
    Support, Integrated software, and a stack that doesnt require much delving into server config files to get going? Literally nothing to setup if you use azure. And two nice languages... Your time, and getting your software shipped is worth more than few thosand extra.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    Visual Studio is the most productive IDE I've used, by a long shot. It's good enough to get me out of Emacs as a my primary code editor when developing on Windows. That after 20+ years of emacs use.
  - uptownJimmy 11y ago
    - One can host a compiled .NET app just about anywhere, and yes, that typically costs money. But then it typically costs money to host any app, anywhere. - The OSS alternatives to .NET are not better, not objectively. Some people prefer them, but that does not make them "better". But that's sorta the point, isn't it? I've done enough work in the Node and Rails and .NET ecosystems to have some small bit of perspective on the matter. I haven't seen a server-side language that beats C#, at least presently. I haven't seen a framework that is anywhere near as powerful as .NET anywhere in the world of OSS. And I haven't seen ANY text editor that holds a candle to Visual Studio. I am pretty sure I'm coding circles around most of my OSS friends, well-intentioned as they are, and it's mostly because of the tools I use. There is SO MUCH VALUE in everybody on a team using a powerful, elegant, monolithic framework. There is also a lot of hostility towards Microsoft in our line of work, most of it deserved. But things change. And frankly, I don't have a lot of time for anybody's years-old grudges, not even my own. I don't want to spend months of my life mastering Git while our billion-dollar clients are waiting impatiently for their apps. TFS is better and easier for our purposes, and a LOT of professional developers feel that way. Doesn't mean we think anyone is wrong for using Sublime Text and terminal. Just means "no, thank you". My point stands: at this particular point in history, the .NET developer is, perhaps, not carrying the burden of proof.
UK-AL 11y ago
Because its fast to get it up and running, and has batteries included. Other stacks usually require tons of config, infrastructure set up. Scripting etc. .net I can literally click deploy to azure and I'm done.
- morgante 11y ago
  Serious question: have you actually developed with OS stacks? They're incredibly easy to get up and running with. > .net I can literally click deploy to azure and I'm done. With Python/Node/Ruby/JavaScript, I can literally click "git push to Heroku" and I'm done.
  - CmonDev 11y ago
    Python/Node/Ruby/JavaScript Yeah, but those are scripty dynamic languages that many developers don't like.
    - hactually 11y ago
      OK, what about: $ goapp deploy Go is a statically compiled language

bsdpython 11y ago

A lot of the NYC area financial firms use Microsoft technologies. If you are a developer at one of these firms and looking to leave to join a startup then there's your chance to jump. At least that is the way they've explained it to me. I don't use any MS technologies myself but that doesn't make it an invalid choice.

eonw 11y ago

i think in this case, they were funded before they started so cost wasnt an issue. versus most startups that start with little or no cash, so the idea of MS licensing is not even open for conversation. i dont really think of jet as a startup in the classical sense. its just a new company with lots of funding, it sure wasnt bootstrapped. IMO, its going to be a flop. their prices arent competitive for the items i have searched.

AdeptusAquinas 11y ago

Because it started with the CEO making a WCF service. Meaning he knew .NET and stuck with what was comfortable - just like StackOverflow's origin. Best to keep to what you know when you are starting something risky - and there is nothing wrong with the MS stack for this sort of thing.

vanessa98 11y ago
Did you mean "a WTF service"?
- AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
  Although I havent worked with WCF for sometime (Web API is all the rage now), WCF wasnt too bad. Pretty good for making REST services, if you wanted absolute control. They streamlined a lot of the configuration needs in 3.5 and 4.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  Not sure if you're just joking or don't know what WCF is, but in case the latter is true: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082(v=vs.110).aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082(v=vs.110)....
  - vanessa98 11y ago
    Can it be both?
morgante 11y ago
> Because it started with the CEO making a WCF service. The CTO, not the CEO. From what I understand, you are in fact correct though. The CTO happened to be a MS guy, so the whole company had to be MS.

Sanddancer 11y ago

Because if you want good support, such as OS lifecycles longer than a couple years, they're actually fairly inexpensive. RHEL starts at $350 a year to get you the same kind and length of support you'll get from a $300 MS subscription. Yes, the retail price for an MS OS is high, but if you're going to be doing server deployments, you'll be getting your software from direct resellers, who do provide much more reasonable prices.

uptownJimmy 11y ago

I honestly believe the burden of proof is the other way around: why would they NOT use the MS stack? Cobbling together a stack from component parts is not my idea of a productive day, though I do understand the attraction it has for some developers, and I do understand how it made a lot of sense, until recently, for those doing some bootstrapping. I've dabbled in various OSS technologies, and I cannot for the life if me figure out why anyone attempting something big would automatically choose anything OSS over Java EE or .NET, at this point. The cost to entry with .NET is basically zero these days, and it is a seriously powerful dev stack.

hactually 11y ago
Seriously? The cost of the MS stack doesn't tend towards zero by any means infact it normally increases as you throw more hardware at it. Yes MS can hook you on the BizNet stuff but you have to pay at some point. Why waste the money when the alternatives are better and cheaper. What does buying MS actually buy you?
- UK-AL 11y ago
  Support, Integrated software, and a stack that doesnt require much delving into server config files to get going? Literally nothing to setup if you use azure. And two nice languages... Your time, and getting your software shipped is worth more than few thosand extra.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Visual Studio is the most productive IDE I've used, by a long shot. It's good enough to get me out of Emacs as a my primary code editor when developing on Windows. That after 20+ years of emacs use.
- uptownJimmy 11y ago
  - One can host a compiled .NET app just about anywhere, and yes, that typically costs money. But then it typically costs money to host any app, anywhere. - The OSS alternatives to .NET are not better, not objectively. Some people prefer them, but that does not make them "better". But that's sorta the point, isn't it? I've done enough work in the Node and Rails and .NET ecosystems to have some small bit of perspective on the matter. I haven't seen a server-side language that beats C#, at least presently. I haven't seen a framework that is anywhere near as powerful as .NET anywhere in the world of OSS. And I haven't seen ANY text editor that holds a candle to Visual Studio. I am pretty sure I'm coding circles around most of my OSS friends, well-intentioned as they are, and it's mostly because of the tools I use. There is SO MUCH VALUE in everybody on a team using a powerful, elegant, monolithic framework. There is also a lot of hostility towards Microsoft in our line of work, most of it deserved. But things change. And frankly, I don't have a lot of time for anybody's years-old grudges, not even my own. I don't want to spend months of my life mastering Git while our billion-dollar clients are waiting impatiently for their apps. TFS is better and easier for our purposes, and a LOT of professional developers feel that way. Doesn't mean we think anyone is wrong for using Sublime Text and terminal. Just means "no, thank you". My point stands: at this particular point in history, the .NET developer is, perhaps, not carrying the burden of proof.

UK-AL 11y ago

Because its fast to get it up and running, and has batteries included. Other stacks usually require tons of config, infrastructure set up. Scripting etc. .net I can literally click deploy to azure and I'm done.

morgante 11y ago
Serious question: have you actually developed with OS stacks? They're incredibly easy to get up and running with. > .net I can literally click deploy to azure and I'm done. With Python/Node/Ruby/JavaScript, I can literally click "git push to Heroku" and I'm done.
- CmonDev 11y ago
  Python/Node/Ruby/JavaScript Yeah, but those are scripty dynamic languages that many developers don't like.
  - hactually 11y ago
    OK, what about: $ goapp deploy Go is a statically compiled language