Hacker News Reader

Comment by daxfohl | Hacker News Reader

A good chunk of that is the "invented here syndrome". With EF, WPF, ASP MVC, MEF, etc, plus annual MSBuild conferences, .Net has far more internally-developed ecosystem than Java. Which tends to promote the idea that the MS way is the right way, and if I need something else I must be doing something wrong (or I need to wait till next year).

Perhaps MS should just kill off all these frameworks and force the community to drive them.

View on HN

That's one of my favorite things about Microsoft. Whenever they release a framework or a product, there's a tendency to just call it whatever the name of the technology is as if they invented the whole thing.

SQL Server - When .NET developers say SQL they mean SQL Server 90% of the time it seems.

MVC - MVC4 is a .NET Rails clone. Named MVC as if Microsoft originated the design pattern that was used to clone another framework.

It cracks me up every time. :-)

Actually, MVC is called ASP.NET MVC. And at this point, it is very far from a Rails clone.

The use of 'MVC - MVC4' seems to me to be an acknowledgement that it is no longer a Rails clone.

> When .NET developers say SQL they mean SQL Server 90% of the time it seems

I've never experienced someone saying SQL and meaning SQL Server. In fact it's always been about SQL the language, agnostic of the fact that SQL Server has a SQL engine.

Microsoft SQL Server is named so because it originated from `Sybase SQL Server`. Microsoft joined forces with Sybase to port it to Windows NT. The name is kept after they went on their separate ways.

ASP.NET MVC is named so to clearly differentiate from ASP.NET Web Forms (i.e. primarily for branding). Even now, sometimes when people talk about ASP.NET, they actually mean ASP.NET Web Forms.

Apple does the same thing. i?Obvious.

>> The MVC as if Microsoft originated the design pattern

RoR did not invent MVC.

MVC (Model, View, Controller) was created by Alan Kay while working at Xerox, when he created SmallTalk and that was back in 1972.

Edit: My apologies to Trygve Reenskaug as it appears he was the one responsible for adding MVC to SmallTalk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93con...

>> RoR did not invent MVC.

Well aware of that. Was pointing out that Microsoft named their framework MVC as if they did.

They named their framework ASP.Net MVC, as it is an MVC framework for ASP.Net, The naming isn't that problematic.

Lots of people in the close-minded cult of Microsoft (which does not include all Microsoft devs.) both shorten the name to "MVC" (which isn't necessarily bad in certain contexts) and have little-to-no understanding of what MVC is other than ASP.Net MVC, so both themselves confuse the pattern with the Microsoft product and promote others doing the same thing.

Roughly the same thing happens with Microsoft SQL Server (which becomes just "SQL").

And there's Spring MVC too. It's not like only Microsoft is doing that sort of thing.

Most people just call that Spring or Spring framework though (in my experience).

>> MVC - MVC4 is a .NET Rails clone. Named MVC as if Microsoft originated the design pattern that was used to clone another framework.

You use of the English language is rather confusing.

Except they didn't.

They named it ASP.Net MVC.

Their other framework follows the same pattern:

ASP.Net WebForms

I agree. From what I have seen every version of ASP.Net has been radically different from the previous and hence the name change.

Should they be changing technology so rapidly? You would hope not, but is the technology getting better, you would have to say yes it is.

But sometimes it is hard to keep up!!

Nearly all of Microsoft's "invented here syndrome" is actually re-invented (often just different enough to be annoying).

Things are changing though lately, which is a good thing.

Yep - the adoption of git has been a great example of the latter.

> Which tends to promote the idea that the MS way is the right way, and if I need something else I must be doing something wrong

This is not exactly true. MS recommends other technologies when they fit. Like Redis for caching on azure.

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/cac...

Microsoft's changing their approach, but it tends to take a long time for the rest of the .NET ecosystem to catch up.

Case in point: Judging by all the .NET code Microsoft has up on GitHub, they've more-or-less completely switched over to xUnit.NET for their testing framework.

Meanwhile, in most Microsoft shops MStest is still considered the best-in-breed option purely by virtue of the fact that Microsoft wrote it. NUnit is a strong counterculture alternative in the same way that espresso drinks are still considered a counterculture beverage in some circles. And nobody has even heard of xUnit.NET.

They originally tried competing for years by offering their own AppFabric, until finally they conceded to recommend Redis after having ported it on Windows so you can use it on Windows Servers/Azure.

That's certainly a new approach for Microsoft. They have a long history of writing things that are clearly inspired by open source projects, but failing to mention the inspiration:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppFabric_Caching vs memcached

* https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa9... vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex

* https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb9... vs rsync

BITS is nothing like rsync. The purpose of BITS is to allow low-priority downloads/uploads to progress without impacting the real-time network traffic on the machine. (The classic use being to download Windows Updates without annoying the user by slowing down their web surfing.)

Rsync exists to synchronize folders between machines.

Thanks for the correction. I have never used BITS, but at one time I thought the description of "intelligently transfer files over the network" sounded familiar.

To clarify, by "invented here syndrome", I meant for the MS shops / MS consultancies. Rather than building frameworks themselves, they search for off-the-shelf solutions provided by MS or a partner. The managers at those shops think "the MS way is the right way; don't 'invent here'".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com