
Why I Moved Away From Microsoft ASP.NET - rnbennett
http://www.ryanbennett.com/general/why-i-moved-away-from-microsoft-asp-net/
======
swalsh
One of the first tasks the new CEO will have when Ballmer leaves is the job of
convincing Enterprise customers that Microsoft is still here to fill their
needs.

That said, the conclusions the author came to may very well be true for
classic "Web Forms" projects, and though he noted MVC... i don't feel like he
gave it the proper time it deserves. In fact, I find almost the opposite of
his sentiments to be true. MVC is a refined platform, and the .NET framework
is a joy to work with (personal opinion). Poorly written frameworks exist in
any language, but there's also a lot of GREAT code written in .net too.

The platform is expensive, and that sucks... but we sell the product for 100k
a pop... so frankly neither our customers or ourselves care about the cost.
Developing quickly, and with the best quality possible is more important.

~~~
untog
_One of the first tasks the new CEO will have when Ballmer leaves is the job
of convincing Enterprise customers that Microsoft is still here to fill their
needs_

I don't think that Enterprise customers are the problem- they already use MS
all the time. It's the small to medium size companies that aren't using it -
and as they become larger companies it will become a problem for MS.

~~~
swalsh
> they already use MS all the time

Exactly, we've been the bread and butter for Microsoft for a long time. Yet
with Windows 8, we're starting to feel like that's just not true... at least
that's the sentiment when I talk to some of my colleagues. For instance We
built our main product using WPF, today WPF is all but discontinued. XAML is
bigger then ever, but only if you want to make a windows store app.

If I leave .NET it's not going to be because some hipster writes an article
about python, and how .NET is written by children writing kludge. I know
that's not true. It'll be because Microsoft stopped doing the things that made
me keep using them.

~~~
nmeofthestate
_" today WPF is all but discontinued"_

This is an interesting claim - WPF is still the main UI framework for writing
Desktop apps, right? I don't know of any replacement framework that is
preferred by MS for authoring desktop apps (I never use any WinStore apps on
my Windows 8 devices).

~~~
swalsh
I went to BUILD in June, and attended an overview of what's new in XAML. After
the talk, I went up to the guy, and I was like "Wow there's a lot of cool
things going on in XAML, how much of this do we get in WPF?" His reply was
basically, all of the visual studio enhancements will come to me. However the
new controls etc will not. He said WPF is in maintenance mode only for now.

~~~
nmeofthestate
It seems understandable - they have limited resources and have a lot of work
to do on their new WinPhone and WinStore platforms.

So, not a flurry of cutting-edge development, but very much not deprecated
either.

------
redact207
Tried reading this but the site was down... ironically. I've been developing
the .NET stack for 10 years now and would have to say straight ASP.NET is the
easiest way to add the most horrible amount of bloat to your pages and bring
about horrible performance.

My gut feel is that it was made to allow application developers to build
intranet sites without having to worry about the stateless nature of HTTP. The
result was a woeful viewstate that got slugged between the server and client,
plus all the woeful bloated libraries that came along with it.

I moved to MVC as soon as it was released and have never looked back. My new
project ( www.entomic.com ) is in MVC4 with AngularJS, Coffeescript and Scss
and it's absolute gravy. Need to expose some DB objects to the client? Two
clicks and I have a full set of REST apis for it. Add to that the LINQ
javascript library and the whole thing's a cinch.

~~~
300bps
I'm with you. I think it's funny how people put down a technology (ASP.NET)
that was released in January of 2002 because it's not up to snuff with 2013
web development tools.

I also made the switch to ASP.NET MVC and can't imagine ever going back to
ASP.NET. The unbelievable clean HTML you get, full control over rendering and
rapid development is just phenomenal.

Most of the anti-Microsoft comments I see on HN are of the "but VB6 is
terrible!" and "ASP.NET stinks!" variety from people that stopped looking at
Microsoft development tools over a decade ago and are still comparing those
old tools to their modern competitors.

~~~
spongle
Sorry signed up to say this - been lurking a while but this one infuriated me
terribly.

The only reason ASP.Net MVC looks good is because you were a WebForms user
before. If you've come from other tech, it's still a stinking pile of crap.

1\. The API is totally broken and consists of tonnes of barely testable
wrappers (HttpResponseWrapper etc).

2\. The attribute model is a pain in the arse. How do you test filters based
on attributes effectively?

3\. Razor is horrible. I mean really horrible. The semantic difference between
inline C# code and JS/HTML is so weak that you end up having to hint the view
engine as to what is what. Not only that, the Layout system it uses basically
stuffs RAM full of string buffers. If you have a complicated page and
thousands of users (like we do), memory goes sky high. Please give me
something like Jinja2.

4\. The ASP.Net pipeline isn't thread safe at all. It's scary actually. You
can't guarantee one module won't set global thread state on another thread.
This only happens under heavy load. That is one absolute fucker to debug.

5\. MS11-100 broke absolutely fucking everything from downloading Excel files
in IE8 and below over SSL, knackering caching etc. This is the norm. Stuff
just does this all the time. One day it works, next it doesn't.

Now I could spend all day writing this list but I'll surmise it as the whole
.Net (web stack) is a stinking shit crock which pains me every day I have to
use it.

I LONG for the days someone will hire me based on other skillsets but the
market is saturated with people who thought it was a great idea and are stuck
with it now.

(For ref the .net desktop / WPF stuff is wonderful in comparison, apart from
Visual Studio which crashes on me so often it's just ugh..).

~~~
rjbwork
I much prefer working in .NET MVC4 than I did trying the same pattern in Java
with JSP/Servlet/Spring. Things seem to just work.

As for 1, I haven't really had to write tests around these wrappers yet.

I can't really comment on 2 as we don't use but a couple of pretty simple ones
that ARE easily testable.

I'm also really not sure what you mean with 3. If by "hint" you mean use @ as
your denotation for C# code, then yeah, I guess you do. I also don't see how
it's much different from Rails templates, and in fact I think the syntax is
far more readable than rails templates (disclosure: I've not used Rails
extensively or professionally) and a marked improvement over JSP/ASP Classic.

4\. We've got >20k users who access the site multiple times a day and we've
not seen anything indicating thread corruption. Not saying you're wrong, but
I'm really not entirely sure what you're talking about, perhaps you could
elaborate?

5\. I can't really comment on this one either, but I can say for a fact that
we currently have users downloading excel files over SSL in IE8 and greater.

~~~
edwinnathaniel
Maybe you should update your Java skill? Servlet/JSP vs MVC4? Try SpringMVC
and JAX-RS.

I've ben going back and forth between Java and C# in the not-so-distant past
and I felt that C# ecosystem is just too limited.

~~~
rjbwork
I mentioned Spring. It's been a couple of years, but doesn't Spring's MVC
pattern use JSP for the view templates?

~~~
edwinnathaniel
JSP is just a tiny part of the whole stack no? You're free to develop single-
page app using whatever your choice of JS frameworks.

I believe any Spring view plumbering can process several java-based templating
languages (Velocity, JSP, JSF, etc).

You did mentioned Spring but in the same breadth with Servlet+JSP which makes
me wonder if you're just using Spring-core and not the more modern stuff.

Keep in mind that there's now "flow" based solution in .NET world. "Flow",
while it is not the best choice for the whole presentation stack, has it
values for developing wizard-like/shopping cart section of your app.

------
chollida1
> The vast majority of .NET projects involve working with giant, monolithic,
> boring, poorly written, legacy “enterprise” products. These products always
> seem to be 4-8 years old and 2-3 major platform releases behind the current
> .NET framework

To be fair this can be said for pretty much any project written in pretty much
any language or framework.

~~~
josefresco
Couldn't agree more. If you want to develop in cutting edge technologies for
your weeks-old startup then code away and enjoy living on the edge (with all
of it's pros and cons). But almost everything else (not just enterprise) lags
behind and for good (many) reason(s).

I work for clients and while I'm tempted to offer new technologies, I'm aware
that this client will be using this tool for years, most likely as-is.
Stability, maintainability and long term investment is many time more
important than gee-whiz tech.

~~~
kaolinite
There's a difference between using a brand-new Node.JS framework that's barely
out of alpha and using Rails/Django/etc which whilst fairly new are proven to
be stable and reliable, and are in use at big organisations.

~~~
josefresco
I agree, however there is no defining line for the non-tech savvy that
determines what is bleeding edge, and what isn't. Is Ruby going to be around
in 5 years? If Ruby is around, will I be able to hire developers easily and
for a reasonable price? These are concerns that drive businesses for whom tech
is a necessity but not the core of their business.

So the business owner relies on the tech provider who hopefully isn't in a
full on romance with the newest framework/language just because it's new.

~~~
gizzlon
_Is Ruby going to be around in 5 years?_

Ruby (the language) and rails (the web-framework) are not the latest fads to
come out. Rails hit 1.0 in 2005, a.k.a. almost 8 years ago, ruby is much
older.

Although there can be good reasons to choose something new, I agree with your
overall sentiment. But we seem to have extremely different views on what
constitutes "new"(node might qualify :)

~~~
josefresco
I wasn't specifically using Ruby as an example of new/unstable tech. My point
was that your average business owner doesn't know Ruby from ASP from Perl. It
becomes the job of the tech provider to implement technology that not only
serves the need now, but also the need years down the road.

------
NKCSS
His thoughts on ASP.NET WebForms are just; it's a piece of crap trying to make
websites have state and you should stay away from it as far as possible.

I am a .NET developer like the poster, also been with the framework since the
first beta (doing not just web, but also windows development), and I've had my
share of frustrations with ASP.NET WebForms as well, but I quickly noticed
that I could use Generic handlers (.ashx) to have a stateless experience,
unlike the normal pages, which allowed me to add AJAX Handlers that did not
suffer all the drawbacks. I just made simple HTML, added my own Ajax Requests
(before jQuery) and had a blazing fast web app without all the fake 'state'
that ASP.NET WebForms added.

Once MVC came around the corner, you basically get the Generic Hander + a way
to properly structure your code. Once the Razor view engine came to be, there
was also a way to maintain proper templates.

All in all, ASP.NET MVC has been great; you get all your .NET code for the
back end, just HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript on the front end, and no more fake
'state'.

~~~
twistedpair
Was accessing a very slow HMO site yesterday. Peeked at the source and most of
the wait was for the 800K ViewState string. Wasn't that hard to decrypt
either. I think that is the source of most anti-ASP.Net sentiment.

~~~
NKCSS
The ViewState should be encrypted with the MachineKey[1] of the server and
shouldn't allow you to decrypt it if they store sensitive data in it, but at
least one control needs to request for the encryption or have the encryption
set to always [2]

[1] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/w8h3skw9(v=vs.85).as...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/w8h3skw9\(v=vs.85\).aspx)

[2] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/aa479501.aspx](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/aa479501.aspx)

------
hudo
Strange post, now when ASP.NET looks better than ever: MVC, WebAPI,
ServiceStack, Nancy and all other micro frameworks, SignalR, OWIN/Katana
middleware, whole SPA story, decent ORM (EF v5/6), small ORMs like Massive,
Dapper, SimpleData ... Which means that author really doesn't know whats going
on in .net web ecosystem, works in big old company that still uses Cobol, or
has just have a head stuck in the sand.

Sure, big companies still uses WebForms, but what should they to after
investing years and years into developing application? Rewrite everything
every few years when some new shinny toy comes out?

~~~
rnbennett
While I've been out of the .NET game for a year or so, I'm aware of the
ecosystem. There's a lot of great libraries out there, that make the
experience considerably better.

Companies on the Microsoft stack tend to be extremely conservative. I hardly
ever see anyone using these ORMs - I see LINQ-to-SQL or EF, or just as often,
inline SQL using DataSets in codebehinds.

I don't think that companies should immediately jump on the next great
technology, however there are plenty of companies sitting around on WebForms
based on .NET 2.0 (2005) and .NET 3.5 (2007), and a few still on .NET 1.1
(2003). The only reason these companies have not moved onto ASP.NET MVC (or
anything else) is because of the sheer cost of doing so. With that comes all
of the negatives discussed in the post.

------
quaffapint
.NET certainly gets the brunt of the "it's not hip" posts. Yea, there's a
lotta junk programs, because they make it easy for people to use in an
enterprise. There's also a lot of junk java, etc.

That's why you play around on the side with all the new stuff. Using ASP.NET
MVC lets you write much leaner html, without the need for all those controls,
et al. They're releasing a lot of cool tools if you follow the blogs, and you
can now just as easily create a clean bootstrapped page as you would in other
offerings.

------
Touche
Cached version:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.ryanbennett.com/general/why-
i-moved-away-from-microsoft-asp-net/&strip=1)

~~~
RustyBus
Hmm, a few visitors and Ryan's blog has crashed. What non-Microsoft tools &
hosting do you think he used?

~~~
300bps
It's hosted with Wordpress on Linode so you are correctly spotting a huge dose
of irony.

~~~
corresation
I run Wordpress on an Amazon micro instance and have easily handled enormous
runs without the server breaking a sweat or failing to serve a request.

[http://wordpress.org/plugins/w3-total-
cache/](http://wordpress.org/plugins/w3-total-cache/)

The simplest thing in the world.

~~~
rnbennett
It's kinda what I get for running Wordpress on Linode. I'll have to checkout
AWS.

------
untog
I miss C# something rotten. It's such a great language, and I miss being able
to use stuff like LINQ every day. But the community just isn't here - everyone
is working on huge-scale corporate projects, and comparatively few are working
on great stuff like Nancy.fx (a lightweight web MVC framework).

That said, I bought a license for MonoTouch, and I'm hoping that I'll be able
to use C# for cool stuff in the future. Just with as little of the ASP.NET
stuff as possible.

~~~
rip747
this is the same thing in almost any community. You have a handful of people
who are dedicated to the open source movement of the language and the reset
just sit by the sidelines.

There's nothing wrong with this though. Not everyone has spare time in their
lives to dedicate to open source.

~~~
untog
I think it's different when the language has open source roots. A ton of
ASP.NET libraries are paid products, and support for them comes at a premium.
You don't see that anywhere near as much in Ruby or Node.

------
UK-AL
The modern Microsoft stack is pretty good. MVC + Razor, Entity Framework +
Linq. It compares very well to modern web stacks like rails, or django and
then some. And then you get use tools around MSSQL like any business
intelligence tools.

The VS MVC templates in vs 2013, come with bootstrap preinstalled which shows
the general direction they're going in now.

------
daigoba66
The only decent argument against anything in the Microsoft stack, in my
opinion, is the licensing costs. You pretty much need to develop on Windows
using Visual Studio. And for ASP.NET you pretty much need to deploy to IIS on
Windows Server. Though at scale the OS and MSDN licensing costs can be just a
drop in the bucket. That is until you decide to use SQL Server on the backend.
It's a great product but the licensing costs can make you go broke. If I
started a new product or company and used .NET and needed an relational
database I would seriously consider PostgreSQL.

~~~
hhandoko
It's a good thing that we can use ORM libraries to implement different
database backends ;)

In all seriousness, it really depends on a lot of things. We've pretty much
crossed Oracle from the list because it's just way too expensive, but it's
mainly the availability of experts and the ecosystem around SQL Server that
makes it an 'easy' choice for most shops in my area.

------
qas1981
ASP.NET is a great tool. If you were to walk into a gig that has a large
amount of apps running VS, IIS and SQL Server, its no way you'd even suggest
full blown open source. If things were reversed and all they had was Django,
Apache and MySQL then of course you'd be a unwise to suggest moving to
ASP.NET. I think as programmers we forget we must constantly use the
information presented to make the best decision on which tool to use.

IMHO - Your article should read more like your customer base has changed, thus
your tools have changed.

------
YummyTempura
i think the "server down" message on your website right now probably speaks as
loudly to the topic at hand as any comment here.

More importantly I feel like this story has been told already a hundred times.

Im more compelled by the reasons people either stick with or move to ASP.NET.
I would agree that for a great many use cases there are potentially better and
less costly tools than this stack, and as a .Net contractor by trade I'm
(privately) one of its biggest critics. But big (non-tech) businesses love
Microsoft (rightly or wrongly), and as a result, in my local market i can
provide for my family a lot better by staying put.

I appreciate the benefits of being at the cutting edge, but I feel there are
hidden costs for some that aren't obvious.

------
hhandoko
I'm coming from a classic ASP background as well, and jumped straight to MVC
(skipping Web Form entirely).

Only later when I did some WPF project, when Web Forms made some sense. I
think the whole toolset is basically trying to lure / accommodate the old Win
Forms developer to switch to the web (and in this sense, it's a great
success).

These days, I'm trying to run even leaner by using ServiceStack.Razor, as most
of the stuff I do is service-oriented SPAs.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> I think the whole (webforms) toolset is basically trying to lure /
> accommodate the old Win Forms developer to switch to the web

Correct, that was the driver behind webforms. Don't forget that the first
version of ASP came out in 1996. Bill Gates' "Internet Tidal Wave" memo was in
May 1995.

At the time, Microsoft wanted a way to VB programmers onto the web, and still
using familiar, easy tools. And staying inside the Microsoft mothership, of
course. ASP grew into ASP.NET Webforms. (.Net 1.0 launched in 2002)

If one was familiar with VB or .Net and winforms, ASP and webforms wasn't too
much of a leap. But the abstraction was slow and leaky to work with, and the
rendered html contained huge hidden state fields and other oddities. So a new
generation of devs who grew up with the web generally greeted it with "WTF!".
That's where ASP MVC comes in.

IMHO the wheel has turned far since then; On windows 8, JavaScript is a
language for developing desktop apps, so that web developers can try their
hand at desktop - the reverse of the situation that Webforms set out to
address.

------
EnderMB
I'm a .NET developer by day, and I'm definitely a fan. C# is a great language,
I've worked on many fun projects, and I've even worked in a .NET startup
environment. Many of my experiences do not echo that of the author. Perhaps
I'm lucky, but a legacy project for me is a project running .NET 2 and an
older CMS version, and compared to Java I'd still pick it. I've used .NET in a
number of agencies too, and I'd preferred using it to using PHP. We've even
taken a number of failed WordPress projects and have taken them over to
Umbraco, and the clients couldn't be happier.

That being said, I consciously made a decision a few years ago to force myself
to develop with different tools for personal projets. While I think ASP.NET is
a great platform, I've worked in enough .NET shops to see that many .NET devs
tend to "just" write C#. They're more than happy to dedicate their entire
career to Microsoft, and to disregard any progress made on other platforms.

The biggest blocker for me is using Windows to develop applications. I'm also
a big fan of Python, but I'd be lying if I said that I haven't struggled with
the transition to using Linux to develop. The terminal is just so powerful,
and even though Powershell has made Windows a much better platform to script
on, I really don't think it can ever match the terminal. Perhaps I'm alone in
this, but I would like to be comfortable with the knowledge that if I lost my
job, .NET were to stagnate/fall apart, or if I were offered a great job using
Python, that I'd be fully capable of putting my .NET hat down and moving into
a mid-level role writing Python on a Linux-based environment.

My problem with .NET isn't really a problem. It's a worry that the the Windows
platform could alienate me from progress made elsewhere.

------
dep_b
I think if you would look around for alternatives for WebForms around the day
it came out it was better than most things at the time. Java had a few
horrible frameworks as well and PHP was still in it's phase of stuffing
markup, database and logic in one ginormous SQL injection friendly file. The
thing that was flawed about it that it was meant to work like a desktop app in
WinForms style, yet the HTTP protocol isn't stateful so as soon as you would
start to nest controls and route clicks, you were up for some pretty messy
wiring up during different phases of loading the page.

I had an introductory course of one hour on Microsoft MVC and the next day I
created and deployed a small website from scratch with it. I always basically
tell people that are still on WebForms that they don't need to learn something
new when they switch to MVC, they just need to forget a lot of the crap they
needed to know to work on WebForms. Every day still on WebForms is a wasted
day.

The writer seems to have moved from strong typed languages to loosely typed
languages. It's pretty unclear to me why he quit using Django and went for
JavaScript instead, but the path is pretty clear. I used and use a lot of
programming languages and frameworks and I pick whatever seems the most
appropriate for the job.

\- WordPress for dead easy websites only doing basic stuff \- PHP/SLIM/MySQL
for very simple webservices \- Django whenever I want to do a lot of custom
views \- Microsoft MVC for larger web projects with a lot of business rules

Statically typed code works better in an IDE as it is easier to predict what
code will do (this is one of the reasons Visual Studio with ReSharper is so
effective in compile time and pre compile time error checking and
refactoring).

I am not sure if I want to maintain all those Node.JS / Ruby / flavor of the
month frameworks in eight years either.....probably we will curse it by then
too.

------
bluedino
Jeff Atwood talks about moving from .NET to Ruby for Discourse in 'Why Ruby?'

[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2013/03/why-
ruby.html](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2013/03/why-ruby.html)

Boiled down to the licensing of the requirements to run the stack, and the
whole open-sourceness of it all.

~~~
bigdubs
I would love to run mono in production, it's just so slow and buggy that this
isn't possible.

The simple fact is that server is not a priority for xamarin; mobile is. And
this is probably a valid optimization.

BizSpark helps though, as far as licensing issues goes.

~~~
asdf3
> I would love to run mono in production, it's just so slow and buggy that
> this isn't possible.

Is that the general opinion? I've never seen a consensus on mono for MVC.

------
shaydoc
ASP.NET WebForms was a tragedy of a grand scale. Its bloatedness and
obfuscation of the web was truly horrific. I can say this because I am a
WebForm veteran. I used it from beta in my 2nd job & even back then I found it
incredibly obtuse and uninuitive, especially because I understood the
stateless nature of the web and it just kinda flew in the face of that (
probably to appease VB programmers coming to the web ).

Like many people, I was also looking to get rid of all the bloat, fortunately
now ASP.NET MVC and WebAPI are proper development solutions that play nicely
with the web.

In fact there's alot to admire about the new ASP.NET and how it embraces the
web.

My web latest app stack is now a Single Page App of HTML/CSS/JS talking to
Restful Services (ASP.NET Web API), just beautiful to work with!

------
giulianob
ASP.NET MVC is fairly solid but the problem is not so much the framework but
having to run on Windows. Managing windows server is a horrible experience
compared to Linux. The automation tooling for Linux is just far better.

~~~
teh_klev
Managing windows server isn't that horrible if you have a decent grasp of
PowerShell. Most people can't be bothered learning how to manage Windows (or
Unix) servers properly, much in the same way they don't spend time learning
Javascript properly.

------
bhouston
I moved to C# from Java back in 2001 for the RAD projects I had (still using
C++ a lot when necessary though.) C# was a great language and it was faster
than Java back then. But for the last couple of years all my RAD projects are
now in JavaScript and it wouldn't go back.

JavaScript frees me up, where as with C# I feel like I am in a straightjacket
where I am forced to write a lot of boilerplate code just to do something
quick (a simple Main requires a class to exist!)

~~~
weblivz
It's the right tool for the right job. C# is second to none for server side
work and JavaScript is great for the client side stuff. Node makes it
interesting but i'd imagine the [server side] debugging support is a while
from being at the level C# offers.

~~~
edwinnathaniel
Substitute C# with Java and your statement is correct ;)

------
SonicSoul
ASP.NET is a decade+ old technology. It made lots of sense when it came out
(state management across postbacks, flexible caching, full base class library,
completely extensible object model). combined with early ajax frameworks, we
did some great things with it back then (like in browser live stock trading
apps before GMail was out) with relative ease..

now there are lots of alternatives.. this is equivalent to writing a post
about "why i got off windows 98"..

------
benmorris
C#, Linq, MVC, Web Api, reasons I still use the platform. I did web forms for
a few years and there is no way I would be using it today. Thankfully MVC came
around.

------
chris57334
Not that you can't get most of this stuff in other platforms or editors, but
I'm encouraged that the features they seem to be adding are actually useful as
opposed to new ways to drag-drop a table onto a webpage.

[http://www.hanselman.com/blog/VisualStudio2013RCForWebDevelo...](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/VisualStudio2013RCForWebDevelopersOneASPNETBrowserLinkAndOurDirection.aspx)

------
j_juggernaut
Most of the time the top article goes down. However there is always gooogle
cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U8pNBnR...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U8pNBnRiHTkJ:www.ryanbennett.com/general/why-
i-moved-away-from-microsoft-asp-net/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1)

------
weblivz
Maybe need to move back to ASP.NET to get his site up again ;-)

I was going to disagree with the entirety of his post but seems there is no
need.

~~~
rnbennett
That's what I get for being cheap. :)

------
adamconroy
This is a well worn path. HN user creates a blog post with minimal substance
that has a criticism of Microsoft in the title. Then self posts it to HN.

Click bait, glory hunting.

------
adamconroy
The only thing I took from this article is that ASP.NET is expensive. The rest
could apply to any other platform.

------
factorialboy
> Why I Moved Away From Microsoft ASP.NET

Because its almost 2014?

~~~
sz4kerto
That's the common reason people* move to/away from various technologies.

* under 25

~~~
josefresco
While it's fun to make fun of a 25 year's seemingly rash decisions, sometimes
those youngsters' rush to embrace a new language or tech actually does move
business forward where before it would not have.

