News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Upgrading GitHub from Rails 3.2 to 5.2. Parent comment

Re:Upgrading GitHub from Rails 3.2 to 5.2 by jrs95 on Friday September 28, 2018 @01:46PM (#18095353)
ASP.NET MVC as uncool as that might be. IMO this is as close to the benefits of Rails you can get in a statically typed language. And it really doesn't take very long in developing a project for static typing to start saving you time either. IDEs can just be a lot more intelligent with static types, and it can be a big help in the readability of code without fully understanding the broader context.

The upgrade to .NET Core is probably worse than a Rails upgrade though, although it's not really the same thing as .NET Framework will continue to be updated for awhile. Switching to Core is really only necessary if running on Linux servers is a big win for you.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Upgrading GitHub from Rails 3.2 to 5.2 by jermaustin1 on Friday September 28, 2018 @03:04PM (#18096112)
Migrating an ASP.Net MVC app from .Net Framework to .Net Core isn't really an upgrade, as both frameworks are continually updated.

The migration is a pain, but just upgrading from MVC 4 to 5 wasn't painful.

I am sure 2 to 5 would have been a nightmare, especially if you were using the deprecated Microsoft JavaScript libraries, and needed to replace them with their jQuery alternatives.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Upgrading GitHub from Rails 3.2 to 5.2 by GordonS on Friday September 28, 2018 @05:11PM (#18097099)
> Migrating an ASP.Net MVC app from .Net Framework to .Net Core isn't really an upgrade

Doesn't .NET Core's runtime have significant performance benefits over the .NET Framework?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Upgrading GitHub from Rails 3.2 to 5.2 by erokar on Friday September 28, 2018 @01:56PM (#18095466)
> ASP.NET MVC as uncool as that might be. IMO this is as close to the benefits of Rails you can get in a statically typed language.

I agree .NET MVC is as close as you get to something like Rails with regards to productivity in a statically typed, enterprisy language.

But using .NET/C# at Github would still have ended up with a significantly larger codebase -- which means more code to maintain, and therefore also in all likelyhood more bugs.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Upgrading GitHub from Rails 3.2 to 5.2 by smudgymcscmudge on Friday September 28, 2018 @07:28PM (#18097812)
ASP.NET MVC didn’t exist in 2008. Maybe as a preview, but it was hardly a good choice at the time.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Upgrading GitHub from Rails 3.2 to 5.2 by jrs95 on Friday September 28, 2018 @09:21PM (#18098195)
Of course, I'm only saying that would be my pick today. I personally dislike working with dynamic languages, but I would say Rails was their best option at the time.
[ Parent | on HN ]