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.
Why waste the money when the alternatives are better and cheaper.
What does buying MS actually buy you?
- 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.
And two nice languages...
Your time, and getting your software shipped is worth more than few thosand extra.
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.
Best to keep to what you know when you are starting something risky - and there is nothing wrong with the MS stack for this sort of thing.
The CTO, not the CEO.
From what I understand, you are in fact correct though. The CTO happened to be a MS guy, so the whole company had to be MS.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082(v=vs.110)....
Other stacks usually require tons of config, infrastructure set up. Scripting etc.
.net I can literally click deploy to azure and I'm done.
> .net I can literally click deploy to azure and I'm done.
With Python/Node/Ruby/JavaScript, I can literally click "git push to Heroku" and I'm done.
Yeah, but those are scripty dynamic languages that many developers don't like.
$ goapp deploy
Go is a statically compiled language
i dont really think of jet as a startup in the classical sense. its just a new company with lots of funding, it sure wasnt bootstrapped.
IMO, its going to be a flop. their prices arent competitive for the items i have searched.
I'm still no closer to understanding why they would build a startup on a MS stack, a question I've been pondering for the past year and a half.