if you build a business around technology that you know will be replaced in a year or so, you’re consciously wasting money
Considering the speed at which things move today, everything is kinda obsolete in 1-2 years . Angular V2 is basically a new framework, V1 will still be supported for some years.
BTW there are many (better in my opinion) options you can use. Ember, react to name most popular ones.
Before I’ve settled on angular I’ve used knockout.js and toyed with Ember. There’s no contest. For a backend developer like me, angular is the most elegant and clean (despite its Wtfs). React is like KO.js more of a view model binder i.e the V of MVC/MVVM . React can be used with angular as the rendering component.
Thanks for the update on this. It’s interesting. Is Bizspark free for a lifetime?
No, only for 3 years. And to make it more clear, those 150$ credit are for Azure hosting even if you run your own vm with ruby/php. You can run a complete LAMP stack on it (self managed though) never touching a MS tech and you pay less for 3 years.
with zero licensing costs, much flexibility, independence (cheap vps) than vendor lock in technologies controlled by one corporation and worry later about unexpected costs.
No offence, but this obsolete BS annoys me. Unless you’re running your very own Windows server and you need to have a very valid reason for that, there are no licensing costs. Flexibility? Can you switch in heartbeat from a php app to a ruby one? No. Can you run php/ruby and a lot of things on windows? Yes. Do you have to run things on windows? No.
How about cheap VPS? You can find as low as 15$ or an average for 30-45$ for somethig with 1-2 GB ram and 1-2 vCPU. When I’ve last used a win vps (with Liquid web) they had the same price 100$ (it was some years ago) for both Linux and Win Vps. And with the next asp.net more and more hosts will offer .net hosting (not windows!).
Vendor lock in? .net started as closed source, in time they open up more and more. Now, it’s completely OSS . Do you think they’ll go back to closed source? Why on earth would they do that? As long as there is OSS, MS needs to keep OSS in order to compete.
I’m really tired about this kind of nonsense, from the early 2000s. I mean no disrespect, but people who don’t know the current .net world state shouldn’t say their opinion about a stack they know little about. I’m saying that as a senior .net developer (web apps) who started as a php developer and had his fun with the LAMP stack (hint: I don’t want to go back).