davidnorth
6/29/2005 8:17:00 AM
> * More control over the "URL" and what your URL's look like. (sometimes
> this matters for SEO)
I'd allways thought that is very hard to do nice SEO friendly URLs in
ASP.Net wheras Rails makes this as easy to do as not, and gives you a
great deal of control over how they look through Routes.
Joseph Graham wrote:
> Hello,
> I've used both and if I may offer an opinion and maybe some experience.
>
>
> Short Answer:
> Depends on what you want to use it for and how committed you are to your
> technology requirements.
>
> My choice:
> ASP.Net for commercial projects that have to get done NOW and require
> more from your development platform.
>
> Here's the short list why:
> * More control over the "URL" and what your URL's look like. (sometimes
> this matters for SEO)
> * Individual control caching and results caching
> * Object relational mapping API and graphical toolsets
> * True component architecture for both commercial and free components
> (likelihood of reinventing the wheel lowered)
> * Choice of multiple languages for both component and application
> development and binary compatibility across languages
> * Unified API for dealing with data from various providers such as
> databases, ODBC, and XML web services.
> * You don't have to use any of the above and you can still get the job
> done
>
> Final Notes:
> Those are just the things that immediately come to mind. Rails is a
> really cool idea and will evolve into something great no doubt. If you
> have time to mess with it and are creative you can get a lot done and
> have a great app. However I prefer the "evolution" of ASP.Net and its
> component driven architecture. There are some cases where I did not
> even use the component system or ADO.Net or really anything outside of
> the scripting language to get stuff done.
> Evolution is another factor driving technology choices and in my
> experience the "state of evolution" has weighed in much more heavily
> because of the huge requirements demand, team skill-sets, and short
> timelines and usually non-negotiability of all of the above. However
> given my personal choice I prefer a nice simple language like Ruby over
> any of the .Net mainstream languages. GOOD LUCK!!
>
>
> **Some notes on licensing: **
> I've heard licensing and cost thrown in as a con but you can't really
> look at licensing without looking at how much time something is going to
> take you and/or your team and it's return on investment. Sure that's a
> "business" approach but **IT is a cost of doing business so it depends
> on how your business center wants to downstream their costs. If you
> work in say a "profit center" where costs really hurt their numbers and
> licensing software hurts then dragging the project out while you play
> around with open software is the way to go. If you work in a cost
> center and have lots of money to throw at getting something done then
> comparatively speaking commercial products have a lot to offer vs.
> building on your own (build vs. buy) I'm really tired of people bashing
> licensing costs because in a pinch I'll shell out the cash to save me
> hundreds of hours on completing a project and especially where deadlines
> are concerned. Commercial software can be a lifesaver and this is
> especially true where some component of your "commercial, proprietary"
> application has a GPL license. So there's both pros and cons to
> licensing so let's stop just throwing it out there as a "commercial=con,
> open=pro" as it really degrades your argument.
>
> **Rails being a web application platform seems heavily geared towards IT
> related projects.