You could run the web/app server on your laptop/desktop if you really wanted too, then it just becomes desktop solution that you view through your desktop browser. In this instance there would be no web hosting, but the codebase would be a bit more complex and layered, i guess there would be hmtl/javascript/json and c-sharp in the codebase. Rather than just a pure c-sharp desktop app.
Web solutions are trendy these days. That's probably the main reason behind this approach. Mine is not web based and I can access it from anywhere and from any device.
Right. I think I understand. I think I still favor a desktop solution, though. The head of the software/developer firm said it was convenient that I didn't have to run directly from my computer since there are many parts involved (DB, etc.) and also the convenience of being able to access it everywhere. The 'private guy' in addition to convenience (where ease of updating code was an additional argument) seemed to suggest that he imagined having better access to particular solutions which would improve charting abilities (which I've told him isn't really that important). Care to tell how you can access yours from anywhere and any device if it's not web based? Thank you.
Since your app has been running on the desktop all this time, and you don't need to access the app from anywhere but your home, it seems strange that your two developers are trying to push you towards a web-based solution.
Sounds like younger developers. They prefer to learn web stacks or how to build android/iphone apps. They might get taught about a desktop gui toolkit/api during a college course but they don't like to go delve deep into any desktop APIs, they prefer to concentrate on web and mobile stuff. This is where 95% of the jobs are. And it also is now getting more common to use Electron style frameworks for standalone desktop development. This is where html and javascript is used to build the GUI of a native (non browser) desktop application. This allows for a single front end technology (html & javascript) to be used to build all versions of the same app, Web/Mobile/Tablet and native Desktop.
I wouldn't say they're pushing it. It's just their particular preference for solving it, I think. It might also be that it's trendy as @Millionaire suggests. Keep in mind that this is a complete re-build - only keeping the logic/calculations/framework in what I already have. But yeah. I think I'd be more comfortable with a desktop solution.
Private guy is younger, I suppose, but still around 10 years of professional experience. Institutional guy is an older guy running his own software firm.
I'm using a remote access solution called LogMeIn. I can access my Desktop/server from any iOS, Android, MacOS, Windows devices. It's basically like Microsoft Windows 'Remote Desktop Connection', but on steroids.
Just make certain your developers aren't making recommendations based on what's best for them, instead of what's best for you. For instance, if a dev only develops for the web and has little-to-no experience developing for the desktop, that dev will have a tendency to recommend a web-based solution. And get references that are verifiable. You mentioned bringing in and saving one-minute data, so how critical is uptime? If you lose 30+ minutes of data, will that just impact that one day, or will that loss screw you up from that point forward? If uptime is critical, then a web-based solution, such as hosting in the MS Cloud, might be preferable to a desktop app because any number of things can happen at home that could knock you offline for a while. And for a web-based solution, don't forget to factor in the annual expense of getting a domain name, and the monthly hosting fees, not only for hosting the domain, but for hosting the database, as well. And since you are doing a complete rewrite using C#, I wonder if something like Blazor WebAssembly would be beneficial, which, as I understand it, would give you the best of all worlds (Web, tablet, mobile, desktop), much like @Millionaire indicated? I'm not a developer, by any stretch, just tossing a few things out for consideration.
Not critical at all. And for a web-based solution, don't forget to factor in the annual expense of getting a domain name, and the monthly hosting fees, not only for hosting the domain, but for hosting the database, as well. Correct. Not sure what the cost is, though. The developer did mention cost the obvious drawdown with a web solution, but seemed to suggest it wasn't that big. Good thing to keep in mind, though. Appreciate that. I'll look into it for sure. Thank you.