Is it April 1st?

You could certainly provide specific examples. How exactly is VS so much better than anything else? I've used other things that worked just as well for me. And, what is "the right direction" - MS is always moving in some direction with new APIs or frameworks.

Intellisense for anything other than JS has worked far better and more consistently than IntelliJ or Eclipse. Setting up a project in Eclipse often seems like pulling teeth (with respect to tomcat, jake, etc). Most options in VS are available via the GUI or easier to install extensions.

I mostly use WebStorm, while having pretty shitty intellisense for JS itself, is a much better experience for node.js development. Second would probably be MS's Web Matrix, and I'm disappointed that MS chose not to include the, imho (with an addon) much better support for node.js into VS.

I'll say that for C# development, I really like ASP.Net MVC, I've used classic ASP in the past (both JScript and VBScript) and also used VB.Net with ASP.Net. I've used PHP in the past (hate it with a passion), as well as a dabble of Ruby (like some aspects, not as much with others). I'm warming up to CoffeeScript, and have also done a bit of Python (desktop UI) and currently toying with Go.

I'm not really tethered to MS by any means, I'm pushing for moving away from what little MS tech we're using in the product I work on. That said, VS is pretty damned good, and on a whole, I haven't used better.

Rails is an actual MVC framework, ASP.NET was an over-complicated, leaky, fairly opaque abstraction for web programming. And it took years for MS to then come out with their own MVC framework.

ASP.net MVC is still ASP.net. You're probably thinking of WebForms.

Yes, ASP.NET MVC is ASP.NET, but that neither changes, nor invalidates anything that I said.

a) Rails is an actual MVC framework. b) ASP.NET was an over-complicated, leaky, fairly opaque abstraction for web programming. c) It took years for MS to then come out with their own MVC framework.

You could just use OCaml, of which it is an obvious copy. You wouldn't get the whole MS stack, for better or worse.

Don Syme has added some interesting features to F# like type providers, so I think it is OK to say that F# has transcended its OCaml roots to become an interesting language in its own right.

Not to mention the approach to OOP is rather different in F#. It's syntactically and culturally different. Most OCaml programmers I know avoid OOP for the most part, whereas it's embraced to some extent in F#. Seems like a sort of "functional first, but feel free to use objects as you see fit" philosophy in F# versus a "functional always, objects are a failed experiment" philosophy in OCaml.

I don't mean to imply any judgment here, I'm just noting another difference between F# and OCaml.

> It's syntactically and culturally different.

Most people seem to think it's not syntactically very different: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/179492/f-changes-to-ocaml

I mean specifically the syntax for OOP support. Otherwise, much of the syntax is the same.

Absolutely, I have much love for OCaml.

It makes me think you shouldn't allow only a single person to monitor something like that...

Yes, the more people monitoring the better. But in this situation someone has to be in charge and make a decision. And nobody wants to be that guy.

I would argue that many more people monitoring can encourage the fear of making the wrong call. "Hey, someone smarter and more experienced than me should makes sense of this." "Hey, the smart new guy is supposed to be watching this. I will look more closely later."

What you want is two or three people really in charge, where the individuals are empowered to say: "I am totally confused. If someone cannot explain what is going on to me so that I understand, I am starting shutdown procedures, immediately. Do YOU know exactly what is going on?"

From what other people are saying, it sounds like Hetzner is the Walmart of service providers. You wouldn't see a traffic jam in the Walmart parking lot and then become indignant that they didn't have valet parking automatically start up to clear the parking lot traffic.

Way to contribute.

What have you said in this thread about socioeconomics?

Apparently not the companies making games like Turbo Turd Launcher 5.

> The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world.

That in now way sounds like it requires the US to spend an extra 800 billion per year on its military.

It's like you didn't even read the rest of my comment. Enough with you--I don't have time for people who argue in bad faith.