Dear Developers, We Think You’re Idiots, XOXO...Microsoft | Hacker News Reader

Dear Developers, We Think You’re Idiots, XOXO...Microsoft

tomstechblog.com

26 pointsSamAtt32 comments

Everyone fails to mention now much more advanced and nicer developing in VS is compared to any other platform. It's worth the money for a copy if you're a serious developer looking to use .NET, it's worth it even more now that there is little initial overhead.

No, I don't work exclusively in .NET, I work in a variety of platforms, but now I have yet another service to offer clients and potential clients that is cost effective.

Does everyone think that no matter what you're automatically locked into having only one stack to work from? Why not use whatever is ideal for the job at hand?

EDIT: Also, you don't have to hate on Microsoft anymore, that's very 2003, instead of focusing on what is the negative, let's instead consider the positive moves they've made, and the quality development environment they've come up with.

"Everyone fails to mention now much more advanced and nicer developing in VS is compared to any other platform."

Everyone fails to mention that since it's completely a matter of personal opinion. I am of the opinion that you're dead wrong...

Yes, yes of course it's a matter of personal opinion. How much time have you spent in VS though, out of curiosity?

I worded that post very poorly, but the point still stands that the integration, power and seamless feel to debugging in VS is unlike any other solution I've seen or used.

Don't forget I use rails for almost all of my personal development, I love the environment and framework, BUT, tool for tool comparison after working fairly extensively with both, to me, it just doesn't have the same level of detail and polish.

I don't get why people are so defensive of their environments, or why there is such bias and hate for the different environments.

Currently trying to learn asp.net after a long and happy career in ruby on rails, django, grails, codeigniter based solutions.

Find it very hard to believe you seriously think people actually "prefer" this? But I guess that just illustrates perfectly the fact that is entirely a matter of opinion, which is probably why it isn't often mentioned :)

If you can, go with ASP.NET MVC or MonoRail - "regular" ASP.NET will be probably be frustrating given your background. ASP.NET makes it difficult to control the generated html and js, and likes to pretend the web is stateless (viewstate).

I feel your pain, the company I got my programming start with was locked into the Microsoft stack already so I was really motivated to use .NET to get a leg up.

And yes, I honestly can't stand webforms, the other person that replied here was spot on, the MVC framework is what you want, there is still a learning curve to the environment like anything else, but when it really starts to shine is the debugging, really, that's what I feel personally is the most power aspect of VS. The debugging is simply lightyears beyond using a terminal debugger to me.

Of course you're right, and I worded my initial post a little wrong, it's always a matter of opinion and what you're used to, but even after using multiple frameworks, nothing feels quite as integrated and polished to me as the VS environment.

> I think a lot of the 'economic disparity' between developing LAMP apps and developing Microsoft apps is imagined and I think $999 a year for three team members is actually a pretty good deal.

Keep telling yourself that.

In the commercial software development world, it's an amazingly good deal. It comes with a four-CPU license for both your web and DB servers, full copies of Visual Studio Professional, and a small pile of other tools that would easily breech the $333/year/developer mark... if you used Microsoft technologies.

I agree with the parent poster -- the wording and intent of this 'deal' are very, very different, and a bit insulting. But if you're already a Microsoft developer, it's still a hell of a deal.

Sure, it locks you in to their software stack in the future, but if you were an ASP.NET developer before WebSpark, it's not like this will change anything there.

What this does do, if you're a Microsoft developer, is let you take a chance at building a new company using your existing knowledge. Without having to shell out more than $100 to get all the software you might need. And I think that's a smart move for Microsoft.

What you're saying is that this is a good deal for people who are already locked into Microsoft technologies. Sorry, but that's still a bit like saying being punched in the face twice is better than being punched in the face four times - and I write this as someone with a background in web development using Microsoft technologies.

> What you're saying is that this is a good deal for people who are already locked into Microsoft technologies.

No, this is about new companies. If you prefer using Microsoft technologies (e.g. C# and LINQ, MS SQL, ASP.NET MVC) Microsoft would like to take economic considerations out of the equation for new companies (same as they do with BizSpark).

For the record one of the points I was trying to (perhaps badly) make in the post (it's from my blog) is that I don't think it takes the economic considerations out of the equation. When I talk to developers their economic consideration is on the deployment side not on the development side. I don't think most people care that much about the cost of their developer tools as much as they care about the Windows 2008 license they'll need for every server

Fair points but if you (instead of your clients) are hosting code you will probably want to look to see if you're eligible for the BizSpark program which does include server licences.

Alternatively, use an existing webhost.

Microsoft is still going to make a fist full of money licensing the software that will have to run on the end customers production server. The $999 is only for development license.

This isn't about treating developers as idiots. It's about subsidising the cost of starting contracting/a new company using Microsoft technologies so that you can build up some profits before licensing costs become an issue.

The question really is "who is the target of this program" If it's people who were already sold on Microsoft technology than it's just a nice thing to do. If they are trying to woo other developers away from open source solutions the approach they've taken comes across as "we think we're outsmarting you"

What if they are trying to appeal to people who need less than 3 years to decide if their business is going to be successful? If it is successful, the money won't matter. If it isn't, the money won't matter.

I don't think anyone at Microsoft could seriously believe that a developer would base their entire business/consultant career on an unchecked belief that these near-free licences never expired.

I think it's much more likely that they are trying to eliminate one reason new businesses/consultants may decide against using Microsoft tech (which their market research may have yielded). If they can make Microsoft tech accessible to startups, web dev agencies and solo web developers then that's a big step towards growing their dev popularity.

that's a big step towards growing their dev popularity

Looks more like a last straw to me.

There's simply nothing they could realistically offer at this point to lure the web community into their walled garden. Dozens of OSS stacks are competing for mindshare. Microsoft is not even playing.

ASP.NET MVC devastates all web platforms I've dealt with but rails. I realise it's a personal preference thing but you should look into it - it's open source, they got prominent community figures to design it and it lets you use C# (a great growing language) online properly without worrying about ASP.NET crap.

To each their own. If MS can revert their public image to a point where people will seriously consider them for a web development platform then hats off. Until then I doubt anyone in their right mind would trust the creator of Internet Explorer and IIS with anything web related.

moe, what do you think of stackoverflow.com? That's running on MVC with a complete Microsoft stack.

EDIT: Also might be worth mentioning they use the BizSpark program.

Anecdotical evidence is not needed when you can get hard figures; http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/08/31/august_2009_web...

I find the "Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains"-graph at the bottom especially intriguing.

Either Microsoft didn't pay their NetCraft-bill, or IIS is falling off a cliff here.

It's not anecdotical evidence, it was in question of this: "Until then I doubt anyone in their right mind would trust the creator of Internet Explorer and IIS with anything web related."

So, from what I can gather, Spolsky and Attwood are:

A) Out of their minds (possible?)

B) Are limited and going to have issues since it's built on the Microsoft stack.

Edit: Also, I didn't know if you knew SO was built on the Microsoft stack, I was asking a legitimate question.

Yes, I knew SO was built on MS, Jeff is known as a Windows guy. Just tried to clarify that one swallow doesn't make a summer. For each windows based website I can show you five built on proper tooling (literally, if the netcraft figures are to be believed).

I wouldn't say the two are out of their minds. "Misguided" is more polite, I guess.

hahaha, I can handle being misguided if I get to release two successful business ventures in my life.

In any case, I'm not arguing with you on the popularity of the two for sure, but I am happy MS is deciding to get their act together and really try to compete, however slow and small their steps are.

Edit: Okay you got me curious, why was this down modded? Was it outside the scope of the conversation? Or was it the comment about Spolsky and Attwood?

More stuff is written in java than lisp. Does this much java a better language by your definition?

Until you can show that using the new Microsoft technology we are talking about (and MVC has only just come out) actually increases development time by a significant factor or some other significant problem, labelling it "improper tooling" is simply identity-based Microsoft hate.

The developers using open source solutions might be of the class "I'm using opensource solutions because they're better in this case," who Microsoft isn't targeting with this thing. They might be of the class "I'm using opensource solutions because there's no difference in quality, and the opensource stuff is cheaper." Microsoft is trying to make the decision harder for these people, but they're still not really the target audience.

This program is really meant for people of the class "I really want to use Microsoft products X, Y, and Z, but I can't, because I won't be able to afford licenses until my business has spun up. I'll make do with this opensource stuff instead." Now, I'm not entirely sure who these people are. Maybe they're developing desktop software or something. Provided they exist, though, this program could actually help them.

I'm one of those people and am happily using Microsoft products through BizSpark to develop web apps. Yes, I could use python with django or php with mysql (and have in the past); but I can build products better and faster with asp.net/c# (it's what I know and like best). And now that I don't have to pay huge licensing fees before I make a profit I can do that.

It can be a good deal.

Personally, I use both MS and FOSS products extensively. I am a huge fan of Python and it is my primary scripting language, but my main career is as an MS SQL Server DBA, and I think that for many applications (not all) it compares quite favorably with mysql and oracle.

I have no doubt that this deal exists because this market is highly competitive with many solutions available for nothing. I wish Microsoft luck and hope that the competition continues.

There will be some customers that this deal will be right for, and it will definitely help some startups.

While it might be/seem deceptive, I think that anyone that decides to base their business off of these tools being free forever without bothering to read the fine print is in for a rude awakening of their own making. Microsoft has provided them with the information, just because they didn't bother to read past the headline is their own fault (the headline is meant to grab attention, not to impart 100% of necessary knowledge).

This is called "puppy-dogging". You want to sell a puppy. The customer isn't sure he wants to shell out the money. So, you say, "Take the puppy home, and it's free for two weeks." It's obvious from there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com