←back to thread

535 points raddad | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
typon ◴[] No.11389194[source]
This might be the most exciting news I've heard in a long time. Being able to use Visual Studio and .NET for web development while using zsh and all the other Linux tools? Dreamland.
replies(3): >>11389261 #>>11389399 #>>11389628 #
ebbv ◴[] No.11389261[source]
Different strokes.. that sounds like an absolute nightmare to me. .NET is not a good web development framework, and Visual Studio is totally overkill for web development.
replies(3): >>11389278 #>>11389431 #>>11389600 #
alimbada ◴[] No.11389278[source]
I'd like to know what kind of web applications you've built and what tech stack you've used for them for you to make such an uninformed statement like that.
replies(2): >>11389334 #>>11391390 #
ebbv ◴[] No.11389334[source]
I'm not really interested in posting my CV to HN. Suffice to say I've been the lead web developer at several companies and have been doing that for ~13 years now. I've used all the popular web development languages, and written everything from small applications to web sites with hundreds of thousands of users.

I personally think .NET is much worse than any of the more common web languages (even PHP or Perl) for the web. If I were writing a Windows application then I'd probably write it in .NET using Visual Studio, but not a web application.

As I said in my original comment "Different strokes.", you may like .NET. That's fine. It might be the right choice for you and the wrong one for me. I was more commenting that it was amazing to me that someone would think it was awesome because it sounds like the complete opposite to me.

I guess I should have asked what you find compelling about writing web applications in .NET.

replies(4): >>11389357 #>>11389382 #>>11389589 #>>11390875 #
hudo ◴[] No.11389382[source]
I would like hear arguments, what you don't like particularly? I'm not saying .net is the best web dev platform, not at all, but i wouldn't say it's worse than most. It has it's own set of pros/cons, like every other, but generally, to me it looks quite decent, despite heavyweight VS/IIS, which is another story. Looking at mvc, rest, looks pretty much like any other modern dev stack:/
replies(1): >>11389414 #
ebbv ◴[] No.11389414[source]
It has a reasonable MVC model, it mostly boils down to it's just way overkill. Using t for web development to me is like using a 27 foot truck to get groceries. The beauty, to me, of even "large" web applications is that they can still be light weight.
replies(2): >>11389445 #>>11389787 #
Someone1234 ◴[] No.11389445[source]
What is "overkill?" The framework? The language? The UI? The CLR?

I have issues with Microsoft's MVC (mostly that there is no official way of splitting it across several solutions and keeping working routing) but I've never found it overkill for enterprise-style webapp development.

We used MVC/Entity Framework. It works well as a RAD for the backend with full HTML/CSS/JS for the front end that we can get creative with. Reminds me a lot of Java development.

replies(1): >>11389505 #
ebbv ◴[] No.11389505[source]
Visual Studio is overkill for web development IMHO (and again, different strokes. I know some people like to write PHP in Eclipse.)

The MVC model itself is not overkill, sorry that sentence was not clear. I should know better than make contentious comments on HN that are going to spawn a bunch of aggressive responses when I'm trying to start my day.

replies(4): >>11389734 #>>11389735 #>>11389770 #>>11391889 #
1. marvy ◴[] No.11389770[source]
Ok, so it sounds like you're objecting to Visual Studio, not to .net itself. Or not quite?