Tech stack makeup
-
@Karla said in Tech stack makeup:
Am I the only one that wants to know what tech stacks makeup companies use?
Nope.
@Karla said in Tech stack makeup:
I will see myself out.
Please be sure to use the rogue door.
-
@Karla It won't be long before some hipster JS developer comes up with libraries called powderJS, foundationJS and eyelinerJS
-
@Karla said in Tech stack makeup:
Am I the only one that wants to know what tech stacks makeup companies use?
Yes, in the same way watching a can be fun. Them, the pizza chain that sent me a LinkedIn message recently, "non-tech" companies in general. But at the same time, you just know it's going to be a hell of VB6/classic ASP mixed with Web Forms and .NET 1.1....
-
@cark said in Tech stack makeup:
foundationJS
powderJS
Didn't find the eyeliner, but you can just grab all makeup.
-
The year is 2018. What the Daily WTF is on a forum that uses MSSQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, and two instances of Redis. It's written in Ruby.NET emulated in JavaScript on the client. Due to the fact that the forum software includes all possible forum posts, a CDN is required to serve the blank pages that get filled in completely by buggy JavaScript that only works in old versions of Firefox.
-
-
@cark said in Tech stack makeup:
@Karla It won't be long before some hipster JS developer comes up with libraries called powderJS, foundationJS and eyelinerJS
So...
PowderJS is a lightweight, easy-to-use, modern, front-end data-driven JavaScript framework that allows you to "powder" data all around your UI
FoundationJS sounds like an actual thing...
And...EyelinerJS is a lightweight, easy-to-use, modern, front-end UI library that lets you give your webapps that extra makeup. Go put some eyeliner on that old, outdated SPA today!
-
@lucas1 said in Tech stack makeup:
I've also become very my a proponent of the boring stack. I just want to get stuff done.
C# isn't boring. Boring is the 20 year old stuff I use.
Edit: this stuff is probably more sad than boring
-
@cartman82 said in Tech stack makeup:
@coldandtired said in Tech stack makeup:
.NET 5.x? That's a framework for the next 10 years.
That was kind of optimistic in retrospect :)
Seriously, wasn't ".NET Core" called ".NET 5" at that time? Pretty good indicator that copy was out of date.
I don't think it was ever called that. vNext maybe. But I don't think so, either. First it was ASP.NET 5 AFAIR, then ASP.NET vNext (this one I'm sure of) and then they settled for Core, but that was only after the organization shenanigans they pulled off.
-
@wharrgarbl C# is such a good language it is boring to write. I kinda like the hackery of JS.
-
@kt_ ASP.NET 5 (on .NET 4) is followed by ASP.NET Core 1.0 (on .NET Core 1.0)
-
Bah, my stuff sounds like I should add another onion on my belt compared to most of this, and I'm not even close to being the oldest person here:
Server: Apache, PHP, PostgreSQL, C++, Asterisk 13 (duh), Debian stable (come on 9, I want that PHP7
goodnessminor mitigation of horrible)
Client: Ummm... Bootstrap (jQuery implied) because screw CSS?We... have websockets? That counts for some hip points, right?
-
Current Java stack:
JavaEE 7/SE 8 running on WildFly 10
JSF with Primefaces for frontend
PostgreSQL or MariaDB, depending on client
-
@RaceProUK Not only that, if you create a PCL targetting .NET Core, there are
5.0
s in there somewhere.
-
@cartman82 said in Tech stack makeup:
Staleness red flag: Knockout.
You might as well admit you have a legacy app any newbie will be forced to maintain.Hey.... I used that. Recently. It isn't that old.
-
@RaceProUK said in Tech stack makeup:
@kt_ ASP.NET 5 (on .NET 4) is followed by ASP.NET Core 1.0 (on .NET Core 1.0)
Yeah, it was a brainfart on my part. First it was called ASP.NET 6, then vNext, AFAIR.