Slashdot Mirror

After being the joker, he's going for the title of "Comical Fleury".

benchmarks prove it

I know... flame me. But ignore taking religious sides for a moment and just look at what their numbers could produce for under $37k. They were able to exceed all of your performance requirements including using dynamically generated SQL.

hth,

Bill

I am a Java developer by trade, but I'm reading up on .NET because it just destroys J2EE on the benchmarks.

A J2EE company came up with a surprising result. check out http://www.middleware-company.com/j2eedotnetbench/ .

And see The Middleware Company's own FAQ in which they respond to the criticisms of their comparison.

"...For benchmark purposes, Microsoft has provided the Middleware Company with a functionally equivalent revised .NET Pet Shop 2.0 application that conforms to the same specification. This implementation includes support for distributed transactions via COM+ Serviced .NET components; and the equivalent Web service as the revised J2EE implementation.
See http://www.middleware-company.com/j2eedotnetbench/

Direct from the horse's mouth, the version compared in this benchmark was provided directly from Microsoft. Whether it was the original developers of .Net that created it is somewhat irrelevant as the optimizers no doubt had access to developmental resources. This is in stark contrast to TMC who would unlikely have access to Sun developmental resources as a third party developer.

But perhaps that particular angle was overplayed in my original post. My real point, as evidenced by the subject, is that when one evaluates the results of experimentation, always keep in mind the parties that have a vested interest in the results and how prior mitigating factors may influence those results.

Just my $0.02CDN (Approximately $0.012755USD)

From their FAQ about the benchmark..

Was Microsoft involved in this, did they fund this, where were the tests done?

Yes, Microsoft was certainly involved, as the paper describes. The Middleware Company approached Microsoft regarding performing such an experiment. Microsoft provided the lab, which was located in Seattle, funded the setup costs, and reimbursed us for expenses, including travel expenses. The Middleware Company invested several man-months in this project for which it received no compensation. The activity took much long than we expected, and at various points, we also hired independent consultants experienced in appservers A and B to tune them or provide recommendations, at our own expense. The parameters of the lab were under the control of TMC. TMC controlled the testing process. TMC stated up front that TMC would write a report about the real results, no matter what they were. These experiments are time-consuming, and require resources. Without permission and some support from Microsoft, we would not have been able to conduct the experiment. We would like to have conducted many more experiments than we did, and hope to in the future. TMC stands behind the results of the tests that were conducted.

Does the fact that Microsoft gave permission for this experiment and provided some support, invalidate the results?

That is for you to decide. TMC stands behind the results of the tests that were conducted. Should there be other such experiments to be arranged in the future, we will not be able to do them without some assistance with the lab, setup, expenses, and we would hope for more support than Microsoft provided us with for this experiment.

Did you intentionally reverse the figures? The .NET version was 2000 lines of code, and the Java version was 14,000 lines of code

Why not go to the source and draw your own conclusion. I looked at the report and it seemed more than fair. This was a straight up "best practices vs. best practices" competition, using Sun's recommended coding standards.

It is helpful to note that this is the second such test that The Middleware Company performed. The Java folks squawked because the .Net version used stored procedures instead of dynamic SQL statements (Sun advises dynamic sql for easier portability and because they are idiots). This time, they addressed the Java camps' gripes and J2EE still lost!

In my opinion you can pin the blame squarely on EJB's. They are bloated, the environments are a royal pain to configure, and they are S-L-O-W. Sun recommends that people use them, so it's totally fair that it was used against them in this comparison.

Hate Microsoft if you want (I do), but you can't wear blinders and ignore the competition. J2EE blows. Get over it.

• The Middleware Java Pet Store 2.0 implementation uses the same basic EJB-recommended architecture as the original Java Pet Store (except fully optimized for performance). Hence, its code count remains largely unchanged over the original at 14,004 lines of total code.

• With the .NET Pet Shop 2.0 implementation, Microsoft has done some further optimizations to reduce its overall line count, while also extending the application with new features for distributed transactions and Web Services. The new .NET Pet Shop 2.0 contains a total of 2,096 lines of C# code (the 1.5 version had a total of 3,484 lines of code, a 40% reduction).