I really don't see how this would have a major negative impact on speed. If anything, it will allow CSS files to be smaller reducing the amount of data being downloaded to the client and may actually improve performance.
Obviously there is a belief that mobile technology is going to grow. The numbers today say are that Flash is 96% of users and HTML5 is 74%. If people didn't believe that the mobile segment was growing at an enormous rate, no business stakeholder would even consider HTML5.
They're both implementations of the MVC pattern, but short of that there seem to be very few similarities between them. Admittedly, I've only built one project in RoR, but the framework itself required much less configuration and Ruby is a huge departure from the Java/C# coding style.
The MVC design pattern has been in use since 1979; it's nothing new. It's also worth noting that Java devs and Microsoft devs were building MVP (a modified version of MVC) based apps in the 90's.
I'm not trying to dis RoR, because it seems like a pretty solid framework and nobody can deny that the 37signals guys were the motivating force behind the current wave of MVC development. However, what they created was a better web implementation of an existing pattern and I honestly think Django and CakePHP are much more obvious imitations.
Finally, it's worth noting that the ASP.NET MVC framework is open source and has similar license to RoR.
There are definitely 2 distinct cultures of developers using the MS Web Stack. Webforms (what most people typically think of when they thing of .NET) is an attempt to get desktop developers on the web. While it's possible to get good markup out of Webforms, most of the default features are a table-based, inline styled abomination. Until MVC came out, I actually worked on an open source project that focused on fixing the markup generated by ASP.NET.
That being said, the new generation of ASP.NET MVC devs is top notch. People like Scott Hanselman and Phill Haack have helped make some vast improvements in the stack.
This is very true. Microsoft has not done a good job reaching out to younger developers, which probably hurts them far more than they realize. While I like working with .NET now, I was 100% PHP & Perl dev through high school and college. When I graduated I was hired at a company that built CMS products and needed me to know PHP, ASP.NET and ColdFusion. I realized pretty quickly that my PHP and Perl skills translated pretty well. The hardest thing for me was getting used to writing real apps in an object oriented language.
Hey all,
I'm the original author and I saw this popup, so I figured I post a quick comment.
A lot of people have pointed out that I didn't really include and example of a start-up using, which is a legit point. If you're interested in seeing a good example, check out http://stackoverflow.com They're a great example of a company that's very open about their experiences with .NET (both good and bad) and they generally post them on their blog at http://blog.stackoverflow.com/category/aspnet/
If you have specific questions, feel free to reply and I will do my best to answer them.
I've worked with 2 start-ups. Both had a major feature release every 4-6 months with minor releases every month or two. At Piehead, most of our projects are less than 2 months from client sign-off to launch. Based on talking with other developers in the Boston area, these timeframes seemed pretty similar to what they were seeing at start-ups and agencies.
I didn't list a huge number of start-ups because I felt the post was getting a bit long and didn't want to jam a bulleted list of start-up names in the middle of the article. There are about 20,000 start-ups listed in the BizSpark directory. Granted, they aren't all web start-ups, but I've only got 5 fingers on one hand and I bet there are more than that in the directory. If you want to see a bit about running a web startup on .NET, the guys at http://www.stackoverflow.com have posted lots of articles outlining the pros and cons they've encountered.
It's also worth noting that almost everybody is a follower in the tech world. PHP and Ruby both evolved from Perl. MVC was in use before half of us were even born. In the end, these are just tools and the power comes from what we build with them.
You use the phrase "all evidence is to the contrary" a lot. If you only see evidence supporting open source tools, you're likely not looking too hard. There are pros and cons to both ecosystems and blindly tying yourself to either one will only hurt you in the long run. My main point was that many developers make decisions based on opinions not facts, and your comments seem to re-enforce that. If PHP, RoR, Django or some other platform is best for your project, use it, but don't hide behind hyperbolic psudeo-facts.
First off, I've been doing web development for about 8 years and I've been using both PHP and .NET for most of that time.
Based on your clear bias, I'm guessing you're basing your opinions of Microsoft's development tools solely based on your experience with older versions of IE. This isn't really a valid way to judge technology, any more than it's valid to judge the quality of Google Maps based on experiences with Google Wave. IE and .NET are two completely separate entities. It's also worth noting that we all have to deal with cross-browser issues regardless of what server side tools we use.
You clearly have some dislike for Microsoft as an organization, but most of your statements here are unsubstantiated and completely irrelevant to .NET. An actual developer knows how to choose technologies based on what best fits the project, not based on personal opinions.
That's not really true. The providers in .NET are similar to the convention over config philosophy present in RoR. IIS and ASP.NET provide a lot of features in what they consider the "most common" manner. However, almost every one of the built-in providers can be overridden with a custom provider. In fact, I've set Wordpress up on IIS a few times and used a custom ISAPI module to allow mod_rewite like functionality to create friendly URLS.
You don't have to rely on the built-in providers any more than and RoR app has to use only the scaffolded views.
Also, the Mono project has made it possible to run almost any .NET app on Linux. There are a handful of projects at Novell that are written in C#, but are served via Apache on a Linux box.