Ask HN: Ruby on Rails or .NET?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1756685

by pb96 • 16 years ago

9 23 16 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

I wondered if anyone out there knows of examples of startups that have developed web applications on a .NET framework? We have heard that Ruby on Rails is far quicker then trying to develop a web application on .NET but wondered if that is really true or if there are examples of companies that have just built on a .NET framework from the beginning? Thanks..

davidw• 16 years ago

Probably depends most on what you and your team already know.

steverb• 16 years ago

This is so true.

We are a dev shop with a lot of experience with .NET. For our most recent web project we decided to take RoR for a spin. Things that would take an hour in .NET took us days. Not because RoR is lacking, but because we just don't have as deep a knowledge of Ruby or Rails.

Having used both, I can't think of a compelling technical reason to choose one over the other. I personally think .NET has a nicer tool chain, but RoR's tools are more than adequate.

Go with what your developers want to use.

DirtyAndy• 16 years ago

If you do go with .NET and you are intending on forming a real company, then depending on which country you are in you can get pretty much all of the Microsoft development software for (I think) $100 - payable at the end of 3 years. I don't think this is open to every country, but a pretty cool programme to enrol in if you can. Microsoft Bizspark I think it is called. There are a few other variations as well, for different types of startups.

dasil0032• 16 years ago

Unless you are somehow already tied to Microsoft I don't see how it is at all sane to go with .NET for a greenfield project.

In .NET you are paying Microsoft for whatever they deem suitable to bequeath down to its licensees. There's been a lot of hand-wringing in the community over slow uptake on new web tech, and general problems that go unresolved because it's not an open source model. On the plus side, you get a nice IDE and documentation.

In Rails on the other hand, v3 just came out, allowing both sensible defaults, and unprecedented modularity. If Rails is too heavyweight you also have Sinatra. Everything is built on Rack which makes things much more standardized and interoperable amongst a range of web server options. You even have people doing work to integrate Ruby backends with bleeding edge tech like node.js that has huge world-changing advantages for certain types of applications over the monolithic and antiquated MS stack. In general the Ruby world is well integrated with the Unix and Open Source worlds where you are free and able to solve your own problems as well as take advantage of rapid progress by the community.

Given Microsoft's lack of success on the web over the years, and the amount of lock-in that Microsoft imposes on its developers, it just seems like a no brainer to go with open technologies (whether that be Rails, Django, or some PHP framework). The counterpoint is if your most talented developers are .NET guys, or you have a bunch of legacy MS stuff to integrate with.

tptacek• 16 years ago

"Lack of success on the web"? Besides the obvious "Stack Overflow, Myspace, Plenty of Fish" answer, observe that many --- perhaps over 50% --- of the largest company sites on the web are .NET, as are retail banking sites, trading firms, brokerages, etc. And, obviously, something like half of all enterprise web apps are .NET.

If that all seems like it trends corporate for you, well, that's obviously going to happen when your platform costs money.

All else being equal, would I start a new project on Microsoft's stack? No. But if I was really strong on ASP.NET and completely new to Django or Rails, I'd stick with ASP.NET. It works, it works at scale, and it's far from the hardest stack to code for. I might even suggest it's better than PHP, all else being equal.

segy• 16 years ago

IMO it just depends on the servers you're going to be using and who you'll be working with. I would stay away, far away from traditional ASP.NET. MVC is far better, but I would only really use it over Rails if I was working on a primarily MS stack environment.

dasil0032• 16 years ago

I'm talking about Microsoft's web ventures, not people building on an MS Stack.

lovskogen• 16 years ago

Do you think retail banking sites, trading firms, brokerages, etc. would choose .NET today?

phren0logy• 16 years ago

Why not fire off a quick prototype app on Rails or Sinatra and see how it feels? Ruby/Rails is $0, and committing your team's time to a decision made without any context is not.

There's no need to make that decision in a vacuum.

bradhe2• 16 years ago

This -- and if you can successfully build a prototype you should have most everything you need to build The Real Thing(TM)

zeemonkee• 16 years ago

Of .NET startups, plentyoffish and stackoverflow come to mind, and both appear to scale nicely. NET is not really my cup of tea, but if it's what you are proficient in then go for it.

robconery• 16 years ago

Here's our story from starting out with .NET and then moving to Rails: http://www.infoq.com/articles/architecting-tekpub

There are technical reasons and financial reasons for choosing either one. Have a read - hope it helps.

niccolop• 16 years ago

Isn't Huddle on .NET? It's a pretty successful project management company.

ucsd_surfNerd• 16 years ago

I think there are many things that you need to consider when deciding on a technology. One is preexisting skill, if you are already a .Net C# person then go with what you know. That being said rails is free and can be deployed on *nix which is also free.

Dont get caught up too much in worrying what other people are using. You initial technology stack will not make or break your company as you can always iterate to another technology stack at a later date if you wish.

minalecs• 16 years ago

agree.. you need to build a product in whatever you are most productive in , and get it done the fastest.

bradhe2• 16 years ago

>I wondered if anyone out there knows of examples of startups that have developed web applications on a .NET framework?

Why yes, actually -- the startup I am working on uses .NET as I (the technical co-founder) am traditionally a .NET developer. http://salesathand.com

> We have heard that Ruby on Rails is far quicker then trying to develop a web application

This is true if you are familiar with RoR. If you're not familiar with the platform then it's not going to be true.

>but wondered if that is really true or if there are examples of companies that have just built on a .NET framework from the beginning?

Yes, I am quite productive on .NET and that's why I stay. I'd love to migrate to an OSS platform -- Python would be amazing -- but I'm just not productive in that environment (yet) and the one thing a startup can't loose is productivity!

I use tons of OSS tools, though, that make things go faster and smoother. The biggest of which is NHibernate. Also, avoid ASP.NET and use MVC if you can.

SanjayUttam• 16 years ago

Barring very specific cases, the language you select isn't going to determine your success in a strict sense. You and your team need to be well versed in whatever it is you end up selecting.

That all said, if you don't know .NET or Rails or Ruby or whatever - you're probably better off selecting something that won't cost you money right from the start...

There are programs that MS has to temporarily offset these costs, as others mentioned. Check out www.microsoft.com/bizspark/

(You/others may also be interested in http://www.microsoft.com/web/websitespark/ and https://www.dreamspark.com/default.aspx)

ashleyreddy• 16 years ago

I went through the same thought process just a little while ago with my new startup. I'm proficient in .Net but I kept an open mind and explored other web technologies. I thought I was somehow missing the boat by not using RoR or something open. But I had discovered what others have and that is that .Net scales just fine. I have government agency as a customer and they use .net and they have some very heavily utilized sites and the hardware spec to run them is quite manageable. Also there are legions of talented .net developers the world over. In terms of the development cost, the express versions of the tools are free and they are not missing features that you would need unless you have a big team. The server costs can be mitigated by joining the bizspark program. The other reason I chose to use the .Net platform is that there are 3rd party components that I require. I would rather use these natively rather than wrapping them in a web service or something like that. Personally I think the price between “free” and using .Net is in the noise floor.

Marwan• 16 years ago

Some startups that used the .NET stack:

-Stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/

-Agile Zen: http://agilezen.com/

The framework you use to develop doesn't matter. If you like .NET go with it, if you like RoR go with it. For costs, you can take a look at the BizSpark program from MS, you can get all MS products you need for $100 for 3 years, then you pay for it.

andrewtbham• 16 years ago

In my experience consumer start ups use ror. Business startups use .net. U will get gouged if u blow up and ur using ms stack. Especially SQL server. Look at prices for enterprise edition, which is required for horizontal partitioning.

malandrew• 16 years ago

Which community would you rather be part of?

bradleyland• 16 years ago

Let's see, do I want to be a faux-hawk haircut havin' hipster that smells like a can of Axe body spray exploded, or do I want to be a cave (cubicle) dwelling, socially-inept nerd who has never touched a woman?

Tough choice, really.

andjones• 16 years ago

Is there any context you can give about the project our environment in which you'll be working? And, why only Ruby vs .NET?

Ask HN: Ruby on Rails or .NET?

Related Stories