

Ask HN: Ruby on Rails or .NET? - pb96

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..
======
dasil003
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
"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
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.

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

~~~
steverb
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
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.

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

------
bradhe
>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.

------
ashleyreddy
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.

------
SanjayUttam
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>)

------
phren0logy
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.

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

------
Marwan
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.

------
robconery
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.

------
zeemonkee
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.

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

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

------
andrewtbham
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
Which community would you rather be part of?

~~~
bradleyland
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.

