By David Utter
Expert Author
Article Date: 2007-09-07
Higher costs and fewer skilled .Net hackers may be limiting startups to going with the hordes of Linux and C/C++ or Java developers and tools available when setting up shop.
Long ago I asked the ColdFusion crowd why more startups weren't opting for their favorite web application platform. The flames resulting from that question heated my inbox quite nicely, especially when one person with the ironic last name of Griefer started a blog just to dress me down for daring to criticize ColdFusion's greatness.
Good times.
The same question could be asked of ASP and .Net, and it has. Lullabot blogger Jeff Eaton picked up on that theme after seeing the question being posed by Sasha Sydoruk.
"ASP.Net faces a couple of key disadvantages," said Eaton. He mentioned cost of licensing, which isn't a problem for startups with sufficient funding, and fewer hackers swimming in the .Net pool:
The barrier for entry for most of the 'hot' languages on the *NIX side is low, closer to old-school ASP than the heavy-duty stuff of ASP.NET. That means a smaller pool of hobbyists-turned-coders to feed the project mill. While you probably don't mind the higher barrier for entry if you're hiring a team to develop some enterprise software, most startups don't happen that way.
Andrew Stopford picked up on Eaton's train of thought. He suggested a way a startup could make a go of ASP.net:
To address problem 1, if you want to cut costs and run Linux you can still use ASP.NET using Mono. Mono is cross platform (Linux/Mac/Windows) with cross platform tools and is free as in beer (web host availability issues aside). Couple it with MonoRail and you have Rails like development in ASP.NET and costs you nothing.
Stopford also took on the obvious question - why not just use Rails?
As much as I grok Ruby as a language I do love C#, I know each can do things better than the other but technologies like LINQ are exciting. While the spec space in .NET (NSpec for example) is not as complete as Ruby (RSpec) the unit test space is more mature IMHO, RUnit does the work as Rubys xUnit workhorse but MbUnit and NUnit are really pushing at the bounds.
It seems that ASP.net is good enough for the startup that really wants to get into .Net for its foundation. Eaton believes otherwise:
When it comes time to web-enable your .NET based client/server application, you'll thank your lucky stars for ASP.NET's familiarity. When you're trying to pound out a prototype of a new social networking site, however, you'll feel like you're dragging a Volvo uphill. It just doesn't make as much sense.
Ultimately, it probably just comes down to what the startup's founders feel most comfortable using. Many are going to do their projects in the garage-style vein that launched Google, HP, and Apple, and they will use the toolsets they bring with them from work or hobbies. That's probably going to be the LAMP stack, and not ASP.Net.
