Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
From: Ed Kaim [MSFT] (edkaim_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 03/29/04
- Next message: Ed Kaim [MSFT]: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Previous message: Ed Kaim [MSFT]: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- In reply to: GreyCloud: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Next in thread: Ton Geurts: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:31:31 -0800
> Guffaw!! Lets say that your employer just dumps the over priced developer
> and takes his requirements to India. Then he'd be able to lower that down
> to $2 per day. And it IS happening inside corporate America.
Perhaps, but I think the point about the value of increased productivity
still stands. Just because the cost of development elsewhere may be reduced,
the cost of lost productivity and the opportunity cost still remain.
Offshoring introduces additional complexities as well, but that's another
topic for another thread.
"GreyCloud" <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:jcK9c.1367$Wc4.4147@bcandid.telisphere.com...
> Ed Kaim [MSFT] wrote:
> > I'm going to address the inaccurate anti-Microsoft issues in this
> > post. I'm not going to bite on any of the Linux-based flamebait.
> >
> >> I'm a big fan of .NET and Visual Studio.NET. But at my company, we
> >> are going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way
> >> too much in light of the huge competition from Linux. After all, in
> >> order for MS to be successful it needs a large group of developers.
> >
> > If your company is considering a switch to Linux because you feel the
> > cost of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider
> > doing some more research before making a final decision.
> >
> >> At my company, I'm an MS proponent, but I have LOST the battle in
> >> terms of justifiying the cost of using Visual Studio when there are
> >> free Linux alternatives. My company won't use Visual Studio.NET
> >> stuff for internal use because of its cost. Why should management
> >> spend thousands of dollars per year for MSDN and VS.NET per
> >> developer when it can just use Open Source software and
> >> documentation for free?
> >
> > Microsoft provides the SDKs for free. Microsoft provides Web
> > development tools for free. Microsoft provides millions of lines of
> > sample source code (and complete projects) and all documentation for
> > free. You don't have to pay a dime to build apps for Microsoft's
> > platform. If you feel you need Visual Studio, as millions of
> > developers do, then there is cost because Microsoft has to invest in
> > making it better. Much of that cost goes towards product servicing.
> > If you can live without the drastic boost in productivity, support
> > from hundreds of tools partners, and official technical support with
> > a well-defined roadmap, then it's harder to make the case. The only
> > really effective arguments you could make for not using Visual Studio
> > would be if you need to build cross-platform client applications or
> > if you're trying to take the company down from the inside.
> >
> >> Especially considering the fact that g++ is really standards
> >> compliant,
> >
> > Is it more standards-compliant than Visual C++? Look it up--you may be
> > surprised. Also see how many 100% ANSI-compliant C++ compilers you
> > can find, if any.
> >
> >> and that there is ACE+TAO for CORBA development.
> >
> > Yes, but most new development is using standards-compliant Web
> > services for integration & remoting. Visual Studio excels in Web
> > services development.
> >
> >> There is
> >> troll tech for GUI app development which is completely
> >> cross-platform, and you can choose the license you want, GPL or
> >> commercial.
> >
> > You can choose to license software you build with Visual Studio under
> > whatever license you want.
> >
> >> There is
> >> even mono and eclipse for .NET development.
> >
> > Yes--but this doesn't support the claim you make about why the cost of
> > Visual Studio if making you move to Linux.
> >
> >> Why does anyone need Microsoft Visual Studio.NET and MSDN then?
> >> Especially when it costs thousands per yer for one developer? I
> >> can't make the cost argument, and there aren't any Visual Studio.NET
> >> installations at my company, only VS 6.0, and any upgrades that
> >> happen will be to Linux.
> >
> > Let's say the typical developer costs around $120,000 per year (which
> > includes salary, benefits, equipment, training, and all other employee
> > costs).
>
> Guffaw!! Lets say that your employer just dumps the over priced developer
> and takes his requirements to India. Then he'd be able to lower that down
> to $2 per day. And it IS happening inside corporate America.
>
>
- Next message: Ed Kaim [MSFT]: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Previous message: Ed Kaim [MSFT]: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- In reply to: GreyCloud: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Next in thread: Ton Geurts: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
