Building a Software Solutions Team / Group to start a small business
-
@ITcrackerjack said:
I do like .NET. One reason is because the libraries are nearly identical between the web side (ASP.NET) and the desktop side. If going down the .NET route, I definitely recommend C# as it uses more common syntax (very similar to PHP, Java, Javascript, etc...). .NET has TONS of libraries for doing tasks. On the flip side, there are many libraries for PHP as well to do things like this. This being said, Javascript is also a must if doing any web app. There will almost always be the need for some client-side functionality and JavaScript is what you'll usually need to do it.
Or F# instead of C#. Lots of high end development prefers F#.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ITcrackerjack said:
I do like .NET. One reason is because the libraries are nearly identical between the web side (ASP.NET) and the desktop side. If going down the .NET route, I definitely recommend C# as it uses more common syntax (very similar to PHP, Java, Javascript, etc...). .NET has TONS of libraries for doing tasks. On the flip side, there are many libraries for PHP as well to do things like this. This being said, Javascript is also a must if doing any web app. There will almost always be the need for some client-side functionality and JavaScript is what you'll usually need to do it.
Or F# instead of C#. Lots of high end development prefers F#.
That gained traction huh? I've been out of that game for a few years.
-
F# gets all the serious attention these days. C# still gets the bulk of development.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade said:
@StrongBad said:
@pol.darreljade said:
@StrongBad We'll be using .Net (VBt/C#,ASP.Net), Java Script,PHP and we'll try to advance in using Objective-C if ever.
Very Windows focused and some Mac. Nothing more neutral like Java, Groovy, Scala, Clojure, Ruby or Python?
Yeah, we're in the Philippines that's why. Most of the companies here uses windows.
Everyone very rich there? No need to save money?
Hahaha lols no.. it happen that people used to work with windows for a long time.
-
@ITcrackerjack said:
I do like .NET. One reason is because the libraries are nearly identical between the web side (ASP.NET) and the desktop side. If going down the .NET route, I definitely recommend C# as it uses more common syntax (very similar to PHP, Java, Javascript, etc...). .NET has TONS of libraries for doing tasks. On the flip side, there are many libraries for PHP as well to do things like this. This being said, Javascript is also a must if doing any web app. There will almost always be the need for some client-side functionality and JavaScript is what you'll usually need to do it.
Agreed. C# will be our main platform.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade said:
@StrongBad said:
@pol.darreljade said:
@StrongBad We'll be using .Net (VBt/C#,ASP.Net), Java Script,PHP and we'll try to advance in using Objective-C if ever.
Very Windows focused and some Mac. Nothing more neutral like Java, Groovy, Scala, Clojure, Ruby or Python?
Yeah, we're in the Philippines that's why. Most of the companies here uses windows.
Everyone very rich there? No need to save money?
I can't say that, I'ts just that windows is very common here.
-
@pol.darreljade Why would it be so common if money isn't in abundance? It is a relatively rare development platofrm in the US and in Europe because of the very hogh cost associated with using it - it is expensive to license, expensive to support and the mainline development tools for it are quite costly. For desktops, sure. But for servers running applications, it is definitely a niche choice for companies looking to spend a lot of money or for shops looking to spend money on technology and save money on developers since Windows development is generally cheaper as it is in less demand.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade Why would it be so common if money isn't in abundance? It is a relatively rare development platofrm in the US and in Europe because of the very hogh cost associated with using it - it is expensive to license, expensive to support and the mainline development tools for it are quite costly. For desktops, sure. But for servers running applications, it is definitely a niche choice for companies looking to spend a lot of money or for shops looking to spend money on technology and save money on developers since Windows development is generally cheaper as it is in less demand.
This is completely out of touch. Every single small business I deal with that has not migrated out to hosted solutions use software packages built on and designed to run on windows. Yes new stuff should not be designed that way, but the embedded market has it and has had it for years and will not just change for no reason.
Hell, we just decommissioned a System 36 (not Windows, I know but extremely long time in service is the point). -
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade Why would it be so common if money isn't in abundance? It is a relatively rare development platofrm in the US and in Europe because of the very hogh cost associated with using it - it is expensive to license, expensive to support and the mainline development tools for it are quite costly. For desktops, sure. But for servers running applications, it is definitely a niche choice for companies looking to spend a lot of money or for shops looking to spend money on technology and save money on developers since Windows development is generally cheaper as it is in less demand.
This is completely out of touch. Every single small business I deal with that has not migrated out to hosted solutions use software packages in house built and designed to run on windows. Yes new stuff should not be designed that way, but the embedded market has it and has had it for years and will not just change for no reason.
Hell, we just decommissioned a System 36 (not Windows, I know but extremely long time in service is the point).We are talking about new software here. Legacy stuff doesn't apply. New code development has little to no dependency on existing, legacy systems.
-
@scottalanmiller Let's say it's say it this way, Windows is common here because using windows is what we are used to. We need / should buy it or spend money for it, not because we don't have a choice but because this where we are familiar with. We are used to it.
-
@pol.darreljade said:
@scottalanmiller Let's say it's say it this way, Windows is common here because using windows is what we are used to. We need / should buy it or spend money for it, not because we don't have a choice but because this where we are familiar with. We are used to it.
Vicious circle. We use what we know, we know what we use.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade said:
@scottalanmiller Let's say it's say it this way, Windows is common here because using windows is what we are used to. We need / should buy it or spend money for it, not because we don't have a choice but because this where we are familiar with. We are used to it.
Vicious circle. We use what we know, we know what we use.
Very well said, We IT people applies that phrase. But there people that doesn't care a thing. Just buy and buy and buy.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade Why would it be so common if money isn't in abundance? It is a relatively rare development platofrm in the US and in Europe because of the very hogh cost associated with using it - it is expensive to license, expensive to support and the mainline development tools for it are quite costly. For desktops, sure. But for servers running applications, it is definitely a niche choice for companies looking to spend a lot of money or for shops looking to spend money on technology and save money on developers since Windows development is generally cheaper as it is in less demand.
This is completely out of touch. Every single small business I deal with that has not migrated out to hosted solutions use software packages built on and designed to run on windows. Yes new stuff should not be designed that way, but the embedded market has it and has had it for years and will not just change for no reason.
Hell, we just decommissioned a System 36 (not Windows, I know but extremely long time in service is the point).^This! For those developing for a web platform, the end-user doesn't see the backend platform, so the OS doesn't matter. For desktop OSes, Windows still has the market by a staggering majority. http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 Why would a company spend time and money developing for a platform that has less than 2 percent of the marketshare?
-
@alexntg said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade Why would it be so common if money isn't in abundance? It is a relatively rare development platofrm in the US and in Europe because of the very hogh cost associated with using it - it is expensive to license, expensive to support and the mainline development tools for it are quite costly. For desktops, sure. But for servers running applications, it is definitely a niche choice for companies looking to spend a lot of money or for shops looking to spend money on technology and save money on developers since Windows development is generally cheaper as it is in less demand.
This is completely out of touch. Every single small business I deal with that has not migrated out to hosted solutions use software packages built on and designed to run on windows. Yes new stuff should not be designed that way, but the embedded market has it and has had it for years and will not just change for no reason.
Hell, we just decommissioned a System 36 (not Windows, I know but extremely long time in service is the point).^This! For those developing for a web platform, the end-user doesn't see the backend platform, so the OS doesn't matter. For desktop OSes, Windows still has the market by a staggering majority. http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 Why would a company spend time and money developing for a platform that has less than 2 percent of the marketshare?
Says someone completely out if touch with modern software development and deployment practices.
Tell me, what PaaS platform do you intend to use for this? I suspect you'll say that you will pay through the nose to use Elastic Beanstalk - which is only in beta. Is there any mainstream PaaS supporting .NET today?
If you're plan is to pay a fortune and be stuck with a single high cost provider, or to be trapped with legacy deployment options and high cost hosting it management.... Then you've made my point.
Use what you know, know what you use.
The back end matter because you have to deploy and support the product.
-
Here in the real world, companies can't just spend for the sake of spending. They hVe to consider the ROI. That's where .NET fails horribly. Higher cost to develop, higher cost to host, higher cost to maintain.
-
@alexntg said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade Why would it be so common if money isn't in abundance? It is a relatively rare development platofrm in the US and in Europe because of the very hogh cost associated with using it - it is expensive to license, expensive to support and the mainline development tools for it are quite costly. For desktops, sure. But for servers running applications, it is definitely a niche choice for companies looking to spend a lot of money or for shops looking to spend money on technology and save money on developers since Windows development is generally cheaper as it is in less demand.
This is completely out of touch. Every single small business I deal with that has not migrated out to hosted solutions use software packages built on and designed to run on windows. Yes new stuff should not be designed that way, but the embedded market has it and has had it for years and will not just change for no reason.
Hell, we just decommissioned a System 36 (not Windows, I know but extremely long time in service is the point).^This! For those developing for a web platform, the end-user doesn't see the backend platform, so the OS doesn't matter. For desktop OSes, Windows still has the market by a staggering majority. http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 Why would a company spend time and money developing for a platform that has less than 2 percent of the marketshare?
Linux has the largest server and end user market share. But the web has effectively 100% penetration.
Why would anyone choose to pigeon hole when cross compatible options are ao plentiful and powerful like HTML5 and Python.
You're argument seems to be to limit deployment options for their own sake. What business goal do you perceive that you are meeting by overspending and under delivering?
-
Don't get me wrong, I love .NET as a library and platform. I've run multiple .NET teams at different companies. I'm certified on it and helped write one of the third party .NET certs. I've managed .NET SaaS (as a vendor) for nine years.
But the places where it makes sense today and few and far between and almost solely based on fear of the unknown.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@alexntg said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade Why would it be so common if money isn't in abundance? It is a relatively rare development platofrm in the US and in Europe because of the very hogh cost associated with using it - it is expensive to license, expensive to support and the mainline development tools for it are quite costly. For desktops, sure. But for servers running applications, it is definitely a niche choice for companies looking to spend a lot of money or for shops looking to spend money on technology and save money on developers since Windows development is generally cheaper as it is in less demand.
This is completely out of touch. Every single small business I deal with that has not migrated out to hosted solutions use software packages built on and designed to run on windows. Yes new stuff should not be designed that way, but the embedded market has it and has had it for years and will not just change for no reason.
Hell, we just decommissioned a System 36 (not Windows, I know but extremely long time in service is the point).^This! For those developing for a web platform, the end-user doesn't see the backend platform, so the OS doesn't matter. For desktop OSes, Windows still has the market by a staggering majority. http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 Why would a company spend time and money developing for a platform that has less than 2 percent of the marketshare?
Linux has the largest server and end user market share. But the web has effectively 100% penetration.
Why would anyone choose to pigeon hole when cross compatible options are ao plentiful and powerful like HTML5 and Python.
You're argument seems to be to limit deployment options for their own sake. What business goal do you perceive that you are meeting by overspending and under delivering?
Are we even talking about the same thing? In my last post, I split out web applications from local applications. Linux in most cases makes sense for a web platform. For installable and many traditional client-server applications, Windows platforms have a solid majority. Despite what you may feel, Linux does not have the largest end-user market share. The vast majority of business endpoints are still Windows. It's one thing to look to the future, but it's another to ignore the present.
-
@alexntg said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@alexntg said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@pol.darreljade Why would it be so common if money isn't in abundance? It is a relatively rare development platofrm in the US and in Europe because of the very hogh cost associated with using it - it is expensive to license, expensive to support and the mainline development tools for it are quite costly. For desktops, sure. But for servers running applications, it is definitely a niche choice for companies looking to spend a lot of money or for shops looking to spend money on technology and save money on developers since Windows development is generally cheaper as it is in less demand.
This is completely out of touch. Every single small business I deal with that has not migrated out to hosted solutions use software packages built on and designed to run on windows. Yes new stuff should not be designed that way, but the embedded market has it and has had it for years and will not just change for no reason.
Hell, we just decommissioned a System 36 (not Windows, I know but extremely long time in service is the point).^This! For those developing for a web platform, the end-user doesn't see the backend platform, so the OS doesn't matter. For desktop OSes, Windows still has the market by a staggering majority. http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 Why would a company spend time and money developing for a platform that has less than 2 percent of the marketshare?
Linux has the largest server and end user market share. But the web has effectively 100% penetration.
Why would anyone choose to pigeon hole when cross compatible options are ao plentiful and powerful like HTML5 and Python.
You're argument seems to be to limit deployment options for their own sake. What business goal do you perceive that you are meeting by overspending and under delivering?
Are we even talking about the same thing? In my last post, I split out web applications from local applications. Linux in most cases makes sense for a web platform. For installable and many traditional client-server applications, Windows platforms have a solid majority. Despite what you may feel, Linux does not have the largest end-user market share. The vast majority of business endpoints are still Windows. It's one thing to look to the future, but it's another to ignore the present.
Linux moved past Windows on end points a year or two ago. Not on desktop, on end points
But writing to either platform, or any OS, for business apps is crazy and has been for years. HTML5 has been the target of choice for some time now. Windows, Linux, Mac, mobile.... All covered at once.
-
What use case are you seeing for client server apps? I haven't seen a legitimately designed one if those since the 90s.
