Slashdot Mirror
C# From a Java Developer's Perspective
Microsoft's C# has raised eyebrows, interest and debate since its official announcement last year. The prolific Carnage4Life (Dare Obasanjo) has completed a detailed comparison of C# and Java, outlining the things that are identical, similar, nearly the same, or completely different between the two languages. If you're considering learning or applying either one, you might benefit by reading this paper first. There are some other excellent comparisons to be found linked from the Open Directory Project as well. Update: 11/20 03:35 GMT by T : Note: here's a mirror; interested readers who mirror the mirror get good seats in heaven.
Disregarding the fact that Java and C# are both "closed" languages controlled by large corporate entities with their own self-interests in mind, they both do an admirable job of bridging the gap between general purpose scripting languages and C++. Having used C# and Java on Win32 extensively in the past year, I have become accustomed to the automatic garbage collection, quick execution speed, and logically consistent design of both languages. The Windows compilers / runtime engines for both languages are quite amazing, and something for the fledgling gcj to aspire to.
.net (which is good for MS-only developers and bad for multiplatform programmers like myself), I'd have to pick Java if it was up to me just because of its sheer elegance. It seems like Sun did a better job designing a general-purpose language (applet "security" extensions aside), and Microsoft just tried to copy Java but add in proprietary extensions to hook C# into Windows. Thus, some of the C# features seem to be "bolted on", whereas most of Java came across as being very natural to me.
Although C# does deliver superior integration with Windows and
Just my 2c...
~wally
I spend most of my time in the Java world (I have written 5 Java books, the latest of J2EE, and almost all of my consulting is done with Java.)
That said, C# and Visual Studio.Net are very cool.
Since Java is not my language of choice (hey, I would use Common LISP more if there were more consulting jobs requiring LISP!), I would not be too bothered if I had to use C# and the .Net stuff.
Really, what really matters is finding interesting jobs to do, not the development platform.
I also have high-hopes for interop between the Java J2EE world and .Net using SOAP. (I am working on SOAP support for Common LISP in my spare time so Lis can play nice with .Net and J2EE.)
Best regards,
Mark Watson
Seriously though, have you? From your vague, unsubstantiated, no example posting it sounds like you use and know Java, therefore you can proclaim yourself knowledgable about C#. Your claims about the "bolted on" aspects of C# are particularly suspicious given the "hooks" into Windows are simply objects instantiatable from the .Net Framework (they're not "bolted on": Just like Java you include the unit and create objects from it). If anything C# takes some of the goofy aspects of Java, such as the interoperation with properties via methods, and cleans them up to make an abstract behind the scenes property handling system (ripped straight from Delphi's object pascal I would guess).
Language improvements have historicially opened the door to new productivity - in real terms - of apps getting cranked out. Higher and higher encapsulation in text or GUI worlds...but they don't all stick to the wall.
One cannot always tell beforehand how big the impact will be. Small movements have exploded once given a niche to fill... and then die once it was swallowed up by a new contender.
If the benefit of C# is only whats in this article, then I'm not convinced its going to change the world. I'll keep to my "unsafe" code blocks and maintain interoperability with non-Gatesian worlds.
I'll wait for at least a committee for standardization to form for this mess.
Hey, I take offence to that!
I've been forced to write sites in ASP/SQLServer on a number occasions because thats what the client asks for (they figure if its all IIS and VBScript it'll run better, I know, dumb). So before you decide to look down upon someone using C# or VB or anything else, realize that there are a number of factors that go into what technology is used.
(I wish I could say my morals could standup to such a request, but low and behold, I want money too.)
Seriously, why do you expect someone to only code in a certain language? I feel that the more you know, the better a job can get done. Just because its a MS language doesn't mean that it is useless. You should do what's best for the client.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
I admit that Microsoft is once again trying to dup Java, but, if you like Java and wish to work with platform-dependant API's that do more with Windows than Java, C# is your answer!
As the article mentions, C# has almost the exact same syntax and keywords that Java has (plus PERL's foreach operator...kudos). There is almost no learning curve. You can leverage the functionality of Windows with C# however, and it has great XML support; so, if you've worked with the MSXML parser, you'll have no problems working with XML in C#.
C# deserves a little more credit than many give, at least if you're working in a strict Windows environment. It's worth a look.
That's all I have to say, but I'll pile on the on wood for the flames that will arise!
in fact, one such port seems to be coming along very nicely.
I have a feeling that C# will be adopted by Microsoft's technology partners, but why would any firm that has spent time and money moving away from Microsoft products go running back because of a new product offering? Its not the products we're trying to get rid of, its the company.
It is quite simple
Haiku should not be funny
Try a Senryu
I've been a fan of Java since it was still in alpha, in early '95. I even wrote a piece of the Swing API. I'm still a Java fan (and developer), but sadly not for GUI apps. MS ("we own the client") and Sun ("we're not going to let this become just a better way to write Windows apps") collaborated to kill Java as a viable way to produce commercial-grade consumer GUI apps.
We need a modern, productive system for producing new high-performance GUI apps: apps that look and feel as if they'd been written in C++ -- without the crashes and slow dev cycle. I'd give up some of the flexibility of C++ (you can write drivers, create an OS, build a browser, it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax) for something truly optimized for what matters most in creating superb GUI apps quickly and well.
I've had high hopes for Eiffel and some others to evolve into the successor to C++ for GUI apps, but it never happens. The inertia of programming languages is immense.
The next to step up to bat is C#. I like the language a lot and think it lends itself to great dev systems. I'm suspicious of the bytecode aspect, though. ("Faster than compiled!", "It actually is compiled!", etc. Yeah, so why isn't Solaris written in Java?) I'm afraid that aspect will still require that "serious" apps be written in C/C++.
I like even less that it may remain Windows-only. If it does remain Windows only (for all practical purposes), I suspect the blame will belong just as much to MS haters dismissing it primarily out of bigotry as to MS for optimizing it for their own platforms.
I'd like to see the open source community look at it with the same eyes as if it had come out of some smelly hacker's basement.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
It sounds like C# has some nice features that Java doesn't, but I have my doubts that Microsoft will make it multiplatform. And that is becoming more important as the range of computing devices widens.
Servers tend to run Unix or legacy OSes. Embedded devices run Palm OS or a free Unix like Linux or BSD. Phones run all kinds of custom software. The only platform that Windows rules is the desktop, and that market segment just shrunk for the first time in history. How can C# dominate if it only runs on one type of device?
For pure Windows programmers, C# wins there and will probably be picked up by lots of VB and VisualC++ programmers. But people who live in that world are already not using Java. For everybody else, Java seems to win hands down. I think C# will neither be a complete failure nor will it do much harm to Java.
But will they be standardizing the libraries or just the language (and the CLR for that matter)?
The beauty of Java is that you write your code once to a set of libraries that are available on a lot of platforms. Even if you had to recompile the code on each platform, there would be no problems because there's a standard library to which you code.
But, if only C# the language is sent to the ECMA, won't we have another C/C++/ with different features? The code you write will still be specific to the libraries you choose to use (and thus the platforms those libraries are available).
Marcelo Vanzin
...do you use a language that won't even properly exist until February next year, when Visual Studio.NET will actually be released?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Microsoft has historically been pretty good at keeping their SDKs backwardly compatible and I don't see any reason why they would break the compatibility of future .NET runtimes (the non-ECMA bits). Some would say that they'd do that just to break the 3rd party implementations, but in reality they'd lose more by pissing off their own developers than they'd gain.
I think this is a bit Java biased, in that it uses some very precise wording and fails to mention a lot of relevant features of C# until the appendix-like section D. And it contains some outright mistakes.
.NET has an attribute for marking enumerations as able to be used in bitwise combination, whereas this is always possible (whether correct or not) in a Java pseudo-enumeration with int members. On the other hand, the "workaround" in Java makes this impossible-- you can't "or" objects.
My corrections:
A.2: Java doesn't have an "unsafe" keyword; C# and Java have a "volatile" keyword that is strangely missing. And don't you think it's strange that he doesn't equate C#'s "extern" with Java's "native"? They're approximately the same.
A.5: Neglects to mention here that C# has square *and* jagged arrays, it is stuck in section D.
A.10: The phrase "both languages have an inheritance hierarchy where all exceptions are derived from a single Exception class" is a tautology, because "all exceptions" *are* exceptions because they extend Exception! Whereas if he meant to say "all objects that can be thrown are instances of types derived from a single Exception class" he would be wrong, because in Java these all derive from java.lang.Throwable.
The sentence two sentences after that one, starting "Finally, both languages..." does not make sense.
B.8: The last statement in this paragraph is incorrect. Isn't it possibly in Java to simply write ArrayList.class, if java.util.ArrayList has been imported? Likewise in C#, where if System.Collections has not been using'ed it is necessary to write typeof(System.Collections.ArrayList).
C.1: This really should mention delegates here. It was inner classes v. delegates that heated up the Sun vs. J++ debate. Thus C# doesn't suffer a "lack" of inner classes, rather it suffers an ideological difference with Java, don't you think? And likewise, Java doesn't suffer a "lack" of delegates.
C.3: The criticism that, for example, it is possible to overload "", and this makes overloading bad, and C# has overloading, hence C# is bad-- is nonsense! In C# it is illegal to overload, for example "", or "==" but not "!=".
It also says "()" (I assume meaning cast) and "[]" can not be overloaded. This is again very precise and misleading language. They can not be overloaded, because custom conversions and indexers can be used instead!
It also fails to mention that "&&", etc. will call "&". The blanket statement that "&&", "||", etc. "can not be overloaded" is very misleading.
C.4: You can "fall through" in C#, with goto. Except unlike Java, in C# it is explicit (and more flexible).
Fails to mention Java's limited range of "switch" statements, whereas e.g. C# can switch on a ulong.
C.5: Seems to miss the distinction between *assemblies* and *modules*.
C.6: Some of these criticisms are unfair, e.g. that Java has thread-safe collections. In C#, a reference to a synchronized wrapper can be kept and the un-thread safe reference be let go out of scope!
Not mentioning boxing and unboxing here is a failure: one of the chief gripes with Java's collections is that it is necessary to wrap the primitive types in their class equivalents.
C.7: Java has a labeled goto of sorts-- break and continue. Thus some of the criticisms of the weakness of languages with goto may also be applied to Java.
C.8: Is this section intended to confuse? The fact that marking a method final in Java means that subclasses cannot contain a method with a similar signature is a *coincidence* arising from the fact that (a) final means methods can not be overridden and (b) Java does not have new/reintroduce semantics and relies instead of the name and parameters. Thus C#'s final achieves exactly the same as Java's in terms of dynamic linking and dispatch-- that a particular method can not be overridden.
D.3: Should probably mention that
Well, that's my $0.02. Apart from those glaring problems, the discussion is not bad.