4 ms·

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 i

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.

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.