Web developers: what is your platform (back-end) of choice?

[JasonCoder]

Mine was Windows/.NET for years, so most recently ASP.NET/MVC4 + C# + SQL Server. But I have moved all my own development efforts to Python, using Django for web work and Postgresql for the database. I may mess with MariaDB as it evolves. The main reason for my transition is that the entire production stack is mature and free, whereas on the MS side you either have to cobble together a development platform using free versions, or pay a minimum of $1200 or so for an MSDN sub. Just as an aside, the top end MSDN sub is now around $13k. Amazing.

Related but subsidiary reasons are simply the lost momentum on the MS side, and my own perception that all the really interesting work is being done in Linux these days (with a few exceptions like games and Kinect and whatnot).

Mark, mad respect brother, but you really need to look into WebSiteSpark and/or BizSpark. I'm rocking on VS2012 for next to nothing. Sure, you need to pay for the platform (Windows 8/Server (which MSFT is really after)) but check into Azure web sites or amazon hosting there. It's absurd if you're used to paying colocation or full hosting fees. I think I paid more for my ReSharper license than I did for VS.NET

Locally, I have VM'd out a 4 server test environment for zero dollars using eval VMs. If you need a test environment for longer than the 30 days + 3 rearms, snapshot that bitch and you'll never need to worry.

 

[Headfoot]

IIS 7.5 + ColdFusion 10 on inhouse framework + Java (as required) w/ Spring + SQLServer 2012 for work. Ruby on Rails + Postgres or occasionally Django/Google App Engine + Python for fun. Occasional .NET, I'm sure the MVC .NET stuff is better these days but I cut my teeth on old school ASP and it was not pretty. Biggest lesson learned is that even though Java has a damn library for everything, half of them are superfluous if you use a more succinct language and the other half is design patterns for the sake of design patterns. Also, ORM sucks and destroys your DB performance for the "convenience" of adding yet another abstraction layer with no discernible purpose.

Been contemplating setting up a Node.js backend and trying out some real-time stuff, seems quite interesting.

 

[Markbnj]

Mark, mad respect brother, but you really need to look into WebSiteSpark and/or BizSpark. I'm rocking on VS2012 for next to nothing. Sure, you need to pay for the platform (Windows 8/Server (which MSFT is really after)) but check into Azure web sites or amazon hosting there. It's absurd if you're used to paying colocation or full hosting fees. I think I paid more for my ReSharper license than I did for VS.NET

Locally, I have VM'd out a 4 server test environment for zero dollars using eval VMs. If you need a test environment for longer than the 30 days + 3 rearms, snapshot that bitch and you'll never need to worry.

Hosting's not an issue. I use AWS and I have a really affordable server at Rochen that I use for my blog.

Like I said, there are other reasons beyond the practical platform issues. Most importantly I'm just enjoying the process. And I'm enjoying how easy it is to get the software I need. I don't need to look into anything. Just apt-get install from the shell.

Bottom line is I'm burned out on Microsoft. They used to be the fun, geeky insurgent, and now they're the entrenched corporate vendor. The PC platform is evaporating fast, Ballmer bungled Windows 8 and RT, and I don't see any momentum developing for them in mobile. It's striking how much they have become the 2010's version of 1980's IBM. I'm sure they will get things ticking again, but for right now most of the fun is elsewhere.

 

[Obsoleet]

I work in what is primarily a .Net shop, I'm not a .Net programmer but I work with architects who are and many say the exact same line as you do, Mark. They're off having fun with homeservers built on Ubuntu or similar, programming in stuff like Node, Go or messing with Haskell. The only MS technology anyone is excited about at all is Azure and maybe F#.

On the serverside, Linux is going to continue to be where it's at and grow. Microsoft was riding high, and still has a few killer applications like Active Directory but overall they are the corporate version of an old man telling kids to get off the lawn. Chasing them away with a pitchfork if they get near Windows or Office in the garden.

 

[drebo]

ColdFusion. It's pretty decent, though really easy to make really ugly code.

 

[JasonCoder]

Hosting's not an issue. I use AWS and I have a really affordable server at Rochen that I use for my blog.

Like I said, there are other reasons beyond the practical platform issues. Most importantly I'm just enjoying the process. And I'm enjoying how easy it is to get the software I need. I don't need to look into anything. Just apt-get install from the shell.

Bottom line is I'm burned out on Microsoft. They used to be the fun, geeky insurgent, and now they're the entrenched corporate vendor. The PC platform is evaporating fast, Ballmer bungled Windows 8 and RT, and I don't see any momentum developing for them in mobile. It's striking how much they have become the 2010's version of 1980's IBM. I'm sure they will get things ticking again, but for right now most of the fun is elsewhere.

That is a pretty spot on assessment. If I didn't love C# as much as I do I'd have probably long ago moved on.

 

[Graze]

I fail to see how programming in ASP.NET using C# if they are great has anything to do with Microsoft was a company.
Its not like you are targeting only MS users.
I am sorry but this just retarded thinking to me.

 

[Markbnj]

I fail to see how programming in ASP.NET using C# if they are great has anything to do with Microsoft was a company.

It has everything to do with Microsoft as a company. First, if you actually launch a business on ASP.NET you're going to be paying them license fees. And those are substantial. Second, you're going to have to move with whatever they consider their current strategic priorities, because they own the platform. Ask anyone who has spent the last twenty years learning the Windows API, then MFC, then .NET, then Silverlight, then RT, etc., etc.

If you're doing a startup web-based business today there is zero strategic justification for choosing Microsoft's web+data platform. What does that leave? Desktop apps? Ballmer is orienting the whole company towards mobile, and that makes complete sense, only it is way too late. In the end I believe MS will give up on wooing consumer markets, and will instead consolidate in the enterprise space. That's a space I hope never to work in again, so MS is no longer relevant to me. It's that simple.

 

[Graze]

It has everything to do with Microsoft as a company. First, if you actually launch a business on ASP.NET you're going to be paying them license fees. And those are substantial. Second, you're going to have to move with whatever they consider their current strategic priorities, because they own the platform. Ask anyone who has spent the last twenty years learning the Windows API, then MFC, then .NET, then Silverlight, then RT, etc., etc.

What where do you get this from? You need only a license for probably Windows Server to run IIS on.
You can chose to use whatever database you like and there are many that comes in the free flavor and integrate flawlessly with ASP.NET and C#.

 

[Markbnj]

What where do you get this from? You need only a license for probably Windows Server to run IIS on.

Agreed you can minimize the fees by not running SQL Server, but I believe the vast majority of businesses that run IIS run it on SQL Server. In any case, the point is that you can't simply say "Choosing ASP.NET as a platform has nothing to do with Microsoft as a company." Of course it does.

 

[Graze]

Agreed you can minimize the fees by not running SQL Server, but I believe the vast majority of businesses that run IIS run it on SQL Server. In any case, the point is that you can't simply say "Choosing ASP.NET as a platform has nothing to do with Microsoft as a company." Of course it does.

Yes but the "cool" factor of MS was mentioned which really was irrelevant and I was more alluding to that.

 

[Markbnj]

Yes but the "cool" factor of MS was mentioned which really was irrelevant and I was more alluding to that.

Ah, well, that's relevant too. Whichever platform attracts young developers is the one to put your bets on for the future. 2/3 of the cost of any development effort is payroll, so how easy it is to find good people is a huge deal. When I started (around '86) MS was, as I said earlier, the cool, nerdy platform that didn't cost much money. You could get everything you needed for a couple hundred bucks, tops. If you wanted to work on IBM's stuff you needed a corporate sponsor or a second mortgage.

That was before Ballmer and Microsoft's big push into the enterprise. Now the top tier of MSDN costs $13k a year. No, you don't have to pay that, and yes, you can use the free versions of their tools, but the fact is that the world has moved on. There is no energy in desktop app development, no MS presence to speak of in mobile, and in all those areas as well as web applications you have toolsets and stacks on the FOSS side that are extremely mature, and completely free. Virtually every young developer today aspires to work in iOS, Android, or the LAMP stack. Not a good place for MS to be.

 

[beginner99]

You can chose to use whatever database you like and there are many that comes in the free flavor and integrate flawlessly with ASP.NET and C#.

Yes but the "cool" factor of MS was mentioned which really was irrelevant and I was more alluding to that.

IMHO basic ASP.NET does not get how the web works and is basically is made for desktop developers and trying do "hide" the cool stuff of the web. The end result is crappy web applications. I'm saying this also due to having to use an ASP.NET app obviously made by developers with no clue about the web. And out of own experience. You have to work around it more than it helps. I assume ASP.Net MVC is a lot better but have never used it.

 

[Markbnj]

IMHO basic ASP.NET does not get how the web works and is basically is made for desktop developers and trying do "hide" the cool stuff of the web. The end result is crappy web applications. I'm saying this also due to having to use an ASP.NET app obviously made by developers with no clue about the web. And out of own experience. You have to work around it more than it helps. I assume ASP.Net MVC is a lot better but have never used it.

ASP.NET/MVC is a major improvement over webforms, no question about it. It brought web development on the .NET platform into alignment with best practices in other platforms.