Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Take on Java Again With J#
CptnKirk writes: "Many people liked Visual J++ as an IDE. The settlement with Sun, following it's Java suit, pretty much stopped this development. Apparently Microsoft is back at it again, with another attempt to bring Java development back to the Windows platform. J# (Jay Sharp), will be part of Visual Studio .Net, and provides "an implementation of the Sun Java spec". It however has IMHO some very severe limitations. It's not actually Java(TM) compliant, doesn't product bytecode, or read Java raw bytecode, or run in a VM. It also doesn't support Java runtime features past 1.1.4.
The InfoWorld article is here. As a Java developer, to me creating a product that is supposed to be some sort of Java tool that doesn't support any of Java's useful features or even latest language spec, doesn't cut mustard. I liked VJ++, it was a solid IDE and if it supported JDK 1.4 I'd be all for it. I wish Microsoft would just produce a good IDE, and not screw with the language."
Microsoft's download is http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualj/jsharp/beta.asp.
---
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
Why do this? Why bother coming out with a castrated, nearly unusable product that only supports an obsoleted version of the product that they're trying to kill? Especially when it's going to be competing for developer mindshare with the language that they really want to push to kill Java (C#, if you've been under a rock for the past year or so)?
I mean, maybe MS is hoping that people will try to use it so that they get pissed off at Java and go with C#? Do they really think that developers, even Windows ones (-: j/k, I'm a Delphi guy myself), are too stupid to look up non-MS Java information? What do they think will happen when those developers realize that they're getting the shaft to try to push them away from Java?
Anywho... Makes me wonder...
Pax, Ardax
to allow any developper to work on their .Net framework. The .Net and C# are really close to each other.
.NET framework. You can use Cobol if you want to, does Cobol is object orienter? No? But the .Net will support they cobol syntax and create object under the hood somehow.
But what they did, IMHO, is they allow people to use another SYNTAX to code in the
So they are not supporting Java, but they are supporting the Java like syntax.
Pat
So much speculation and nothing has been proven yet. The best way to cut through this hype is to wait and let the .NET platform (along with all the #'s) prove itself...if it can. When I see a full scale application running on Unix, I'll take it seriously. I'm still waiting to see an enterprise scaled (stable!) application using COM, MTS, or COM+.
For the time being, I can't see J# making much of an impact. If someone is going to write an application using Java syntax, why would they not gear it for the proven JVM rather than something that has done nothing and could fall to the same fate as J++?
I agree MS can make quality IDEs. I personally find Vi to be the most efficient place to write code, but can see how a good IDE would go far.
For all the conspiracy theorists, there is a very good reason for J#... porting existing J++ code over to .Net. Also, as a side benefit(!?) you can port most Java code over to .Net. Some bright person in our organization decided that we were going to move to .Net going forward, and our port has saved us weeks of development time.
Personally, I would NEVER use it as a primary development language. There are quit a few issues with it, but its a life saver for people porting.
Whenever somebody referes to J# as Java, simple repond tha J# is broken, it is not Java! Management are capable of understanding this simple truth, without explaination.
Remember: In English, the # symbol is a hash, to hash something means to bodge or fcuk it up.
Not one of your best trolls. Try again.
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
isn't C# supposed to be what J# is going to be used for? what the hell is going on?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Let's be frank. C# was designed to replace Java. It's got a C-like object-oriented syntax that allows package importation and that, through .NET, is compiled and delivered in binary form throughout the internet, right?
.NET?
What I want to know is what the heck the point is of continuing J++ as J#, which I assume also has a C-like object-oriented syntax that allows package importation and that, through regular Java compilation, is delivered in binary form throughout the internet?
Is the J++ user-base so large that it's profitable to help them migrate to
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Yeh. It's called C++.
Yeah, I'm confused. I thought C# was basically MS's replacement for Java. Why would developers work with J# since its just another Java look alike that is not Java?
Someone you trust is one of us.
Is porting real Java to windows binary, for distribution to people who are too lazy or scared to download and install a JVM on their new Java-Free XP boxen.
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
Windows.NET will, XP is just Windows 2000 with a modified UI and additional support applications. In fact the kernels (2000 vs. XP) are surprisingly similar - XP's version number is 5.1 (2000's is 5.0).
.NET, there was a language called COM+ (not the COM mananger they shipped) which was never released (although there are two articles in msj now msdn).
.NET comes into play.
Microsoft probably uses a "custom" C/C++ compiler (not the old VC++ one) - I'm not sure if you remember, but before
For years microsoft has had the ability to target multiple platforms - they've had the "MSIL" for years - read "debugging the development process".
Microsoft will move to other platforms, but to do so developers will need to make their code portable, which is where
Remember, m$ released Windows NT 8 years ago as being a cross-platform OS. Their basic philosophy appears to be that all platforms are supported in all languages (so long as they're running Windows and can't be recompiled to anything else.)
Given MS's loss to Sun with Visual J++ and the knowledge that MS wants to push C#, how many Java developers will actually bother with this one?
Obviously, MS's marketing people have a good track record, but maybe a Java to C# conversion tool would have been a better choice...
:q!
I think they are still trying to do that - the only problem is that all the object code is tailored for the x86. I think once .NET takes off, and it will, we'll see windows on other architectures - either native or as a hosted os.
Besides allowing the J++ developers to port their code to .Net, this leaves the doors wide open and make it easy (easier anyway, they are massive) for a third party to implement the Java APIs (e.g. the J2EE family on top of .Net. To my way of thinking, that could have a lot of value.
.Net by making sure the language syntax isn't a barrier. Sure C# isn't all that far from Java, but now the language is no excuse at all. (The API learning curve may be a barrier but Microsoft has made that easy to get into through Intellisense, wizards, etc.)
To use a hockey analogy:
So Microsoft isn't allowed to score with the Java puck on the Sun goal anymore. But are they prohibited from making an assist? Nope.
Also, there is the idea that they may simply be trying to lure Java developers as a whole into
You know it's funny.. I just went to the MS DevDays conference this last week and no mention was made of J#. Hmm....
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
One other thing - M$ and Intel have always been really, really close. This has always been an advantage for both of them. But if M$ follows the WinCE 'other processor support' with more desktop OS support, does this mean that Intel's RedHat investment wasn't just to prevent RedHat distributions on Solaris etc, was there a real commitment to Linux? And more importantly, is M$ really committed to other architectures - NT has always supported other processors, but M$ won't even compile its own applications for them - let alone anybody else. For one, I can't build an NT app on say, Alpha, without an Alpha PC - something I can't cost-justify. Increasingly, as Windows and other apps have grown with non-assembler languages, the proportion of the code that's Intel-specific has to be pretty small by now. I just can't see M$ being serious about more diverse architectures - they haven't been in the past.
who makes the procs? Intel, Sun (TI), IBM/Motorola, HP (not for too much more), Compaq (dead), AMD (will they keep up), and transmeta (dying) - there's a few more. The only way for microsoft to gain power is to spread it's software grip to other systems, but cost effective.
My only confusion with J# is that it looks the same as C#. C# is Java with a few keywords modified. What is different between the two? From looking at a page of code, I couldn't tell you which is which! They've even made VB look the same. Why would anyone prefer one over the other?
Still, based on what I read here, creating languages that compile to an intermediate code and then are interpreted/recompiled at the OS-level sounds like a good approach for MS. But.. I can't help but think I've heard of this approach somewhere before.... hrm.... Could it be... Java and Hotspot???
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
Microsoft compiles output from C# and J# to an intermediate code that is given, in turn to a JIT compiler. There is no virtual machine, but what the code is allowed to do is well defined (you can only make certain defined calls to a special environment. You can not self modify the code or execute data so calls outside the box are prevented.
There is no particular advantage to this approach as opposed to the JVM/JIT compiler combinations used for Java except that the execution environment is a lot friendlier to Windows type programs.
J# is just a way to lever Java code onto .NET, the same with COBOL# and FORTRAN#. As the C# language spec, the intermediate code and the execution envionmrnt spec is being passed to ECMA, I begin to feel more comfortable about this side of .NET (see also the Mono project). Hailstorm sucks big, but that is just BillG's normal attempt at world domination. The architecture doesn't need Hailstorm and some OS developers like what they see.
Of course, the reason behind .NET was to fight SUN, however, SUN openned themselves up to this by not properly opening up Java quickly enough. Frankly, SUN doesn't have the muscle to run the Java project by itself (having lived with the bleeding edge of Java betas, I see that). MS is no better but by giving it to ECMA, the standards are under public control/scrutiny so it is difficult for them to embrace/extend.
See my journal, I write things there
forget about C#, Java, VB, C++, etc - these are just the "tools" - I written code in assember, c, c++, java, perl, vb, basic, etc for years - too many people worry about the language and not the solution.
.NET micorosft could target solaris, linux, mac, x-box, mobile devices with the same code base, the same wide application support. COM will die, Java will run in .NET with .NET wrappers to the .NET platform os, Linux will be a great server OS but have limited desktop support.
We need to look at microsoft differently - we see them as "Windows" when in fact they're more than that - Microsoft makes most of it's money from applications like office, exchange, sql, vc++, vb, vstudio et al. Microsoft needs to move away from the OS to grow (home appliance, large systems, etc) - windows is the common platform, just the way ".NET" will be the platform beyond windows.
Think of it this way, if microsoft can abstract it's applications to "virtual" platform, it can then start moving across platforms - very different from Sun's java. The JVM method is cool, but application based - ".NET" is a platform, whether it's on windows or not. As much as I disagree with microsoft's policies, they do understand application (not os)development more than most others. With
Does this make sense?
an asspiring scripot kiddy
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
flipper28 said "I'm not sure if you remember, but before .NET, there was a language called COM+ (not the COM mananger they shipped) which was never released (although there are two articles in msj now msdn)."
.NET comes into play."Yeah, Microsoft gave up trying to assimilate Java and came out with their own virtual machine environment. They're reinventing stuff folks like IBM developed about 30 years ago though much more nicely packaged.
COM+ is an architecture, not a language. You can write COM+ apps in C++, VB, and now C#. COM+ has
been made part of dot-NET along with MTS and
MSMQ. If you have Win2K or XP, you've got COM+. There are client installations available all the
way back to Win95 as well.
Next flipper28 said, "Microsoft will move to other platforms, but to do so developers will need to make their code portable, which is where
-rick
search old issues of MSJ (now msdn magazine) for COM+ - it was not originally an architecture, it was an extension to C++ - Microsoft changed this when Java went south. If you can't find the article, I'll find it for you.
I agree with your comment about IBM - like Xerox, Sun and all the big hardware guys have real problems comercializing technology - companies like microsoft hire them an spin off their inventions.