I'd say the assertion was under the assumption that the devs in question know the .Net stack well enough to gain at least a 10% productivity gain over using a stack they are less familiar with.
By the grandparent's description, the difference would be that DDG is not saving the ip address and browser information associated with the search query. If they're only saving the frequency of each search query and nothing else, then there would be no way to see for a particular user/browser/ip address what search queries have been performed because that dimension to the data simply doesn't exist.
If you consider the price in terms of the utility you'll get out of it I think that's a reasonable price. This book[1] is recommended up the page and that's $23 minimum.
If there's anyone out there comfortable in both the way of vi and the way of Emacs, does this feel better than the Emacs emulation [1]? I'd love to be able to work with text more efficiently in Visual Studio, but the Emacs emulation feels only half way there.
[1] http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/09dc58c4-6f47-...
If it was a computer playing the exact same notes as MacDara Ó Raghallaigh but with simple sine waves, would it be boring then? The author notes in the first paragraph that if an instrument is producing overtones then it is being polytonal, and hence not necessarily boring.
It looks like this is because rescue is a reserved word in Ruby (Disclaimer: I'm not a Ruby expert, just basing this on a Google search and the syntax highlighting)