Slashdot Mirror
Visual J# .NET Released
Goalie_Ca writes: "Visual J# .NET was released at the Tech Ed 2002 Europe Developper conference today.
Visual J# .NET is not a tool for developing applications intended to run on a Java virtual machine. Applications and services built with Visual J# .NET will run only in the .NET Framework; they will not run on any Java virtual machine. Download it here; Microsoft J# .Net site."
Visual J# .NET
Wow, what are the marketing people at MS smoking these days? They've obviously moved onto hard stuff. Rember the says of MS Bob? Marketing is a gateway drug.
Friends don't let friends join Marketing!
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
It's designed to run on a Java Virtual Machine but will only work on the .Net Framework.... This sounds absurd, why not just use Java? I'll admit I'm not to informed on the whole '.NET' strategy (frankly, don't care), but can someone educate me on the possible use of J#?
Rick
Making something out of nothing : MD5 ("") = d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
Pretty much it's a way for those who want to transplant older J# code (looks and breathes like Java but doesn't quite taste or smell like Java, more like 6-day old sludge in a bottom of mug) into .NET. There is a beta converter available to convert Java code into J# code (if it's like the VB6 to VB.NET converter, you will still need to make conversions by hand).
.NET (even with the Rotor CLI, since that is only a small portion of the .NET scheme).
Personally, I think that the version 1.4 of the JDK/JRE/JVM is quite nice, peppier than it's older siblings, and is the bytecode created is a lot more portable than bytecode produced in
With Java, one language can create a program that runs on many platforms.
With dotNet, many languages can create a program that runs on one platform.
So what happens if MS decides to create a CLR for other platforms. Than you have many languages that can run on many platforms.
Porting code will still be necessary unless Microsoft provides the Java APIs in CLR, which I don't think their settlement with Sun allows them to do.
The real advantage of this is not having to learn a new programming language. But, having learned C# from a Java background, the difference is laughably negligible.
reech bee-yond ur clip-0n
From what I have seen in the business world, the big hurdle holding many companies back from upgrading to .NET is the cost of porting all of the legacy Java code to the new application framework. J# gives real customers a low-cost upgrade path that won't break the bank or the developers' backs.
.NET. Once you adopt .NET, you will be paying through the nose to Microsoft (in more ways than just paying with money). Anyone who sees .NET as anything other than a high-risk development platform is fooling themselves.
.NET is just another Microsoft product no different, in principle, than all the others.
1) Java is not "legacy."
2) There is no such thing as a "low-cost" upgrade to
Now that Sun is being given some real competition in the virtual machine market, maybe we'll see some genuine innovation.
.NET provides minimal innovation over anything that has come before it. Many flavors of the same language, established virtual machine ideas, one proprietary platform.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
>> If C# doesn't support a language feature,
.NET; Microsoft itself supports JScript and VB.NET in addition to C#. There's even a COBOL. Not all of the CLR's capabilities are exercised by every language, and C# is not the superset of them all. I'm sure Microsoft will need to expand the CLR functions to efficiently accomodate new languages that people want to port to the platform, but what do you expect for a 1.0 version?
>> then you bet your Bill Gates nose stain
>> that the Prolog port won't either
C# is just one of many languages available for
Microsoft released a new product today named BuggyWhip.NET, which they say will become the industry standard in "Horse Motivation Technology". A Microsoft spokesman was quoted as saying that the motivation behind this release was to prevent Visual J#.NET from becoming the most useless thing on the face of the earth.
I must be missing something important, because I don't see what all the fuss is about .NET. Sounds to me like the developer's analog to the 'XP' suffix, and little more. "Look, .NET is different. .NET is the greatest thing since sliced bread." .NET is just a name tacked onto every piece of software these days. Screw this J# crap, wherever Java is needed, Microsoft isn't, else we'd be using Visual Basic for that same crap.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"Anyone who sees .NET as anything other than a high-risk development platform is fooling themselves.
Spoken truly like someone who does not develop software for windows. Like it or not .NET does offer some features/advantages over VS6. Most software that exists does so for the windows desktop, a platform that is in no immediate danger of being replaced. Yes, the odds of getting anything written in Visual J# .NET to run on another platform are slim, but the same can be said about VB, C#, VC++, or VJ++.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Or you can see an Evil Plan. I'm usually skeptical of Microsoft conspiracy theories, but for once its moderately plausible. Any real Java compatibility (like a Java VM implemented on top of the .NET VM) just wouldn't do. Can't create a two-way migration path!
So you create a new Java-like language that compiles to .NET byte codes. This makes it easy to port existing Java software to .NET. But it's a one-way path, because nobody will use this language to create new .NET software. If they like Java-like languages, they'll use C#. Otherwise they'll use C++ or one of the other .NET-compatible compilers.
Uhm, maybe not. If they just want to seduce Java programmers, they could just write a Java-to-C# translater. The languages aren't that different.
Oh well, what do I know?
Think .NET as a set of library that is already created for you. So when you use J#, you can use these API calls in .NET. Of course for many of the methods, you can find Java equivalent, but there are some you will have to code for yourself. For example, if you need to access the Windows registry, there is no standard way in the JDK. In addition, if you create a control in another language say Perl.NET, you are able to use it in J#.
That's the most stupid name I've ever heard.
Even though I'm an avid C fan, I cannot but wonder what this topic has to do with Java: it is not running on a Java virtual machine, and since it will only run on .NET, it is per definition not cross platform.
Knowing Micro$oft, the syntax will not even be compliant with Java.
So what the heck is J# to do with Java and what is the coffee cup doing in the story?
/me votes for a specific topic "M$ FUD and misguiding (aka new monopoly) schemes"
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
Microsoft said back in the late 80's they would port COM to Unix... I'm still waiting. Microsoft says a lot of things. Don't you get it?
Wow, that's a lot of verbage.
Despite the average bias here against Microsoft, the whole .NET thing could be a great thing if/when Mono and other projects come out for more support. The biggest feature I see for J# comes with speed. The Java VM for Linux & Windows is horribly slow, only the Mac OS X VM is anywhere near a full program. From all the tests I've done comparing C# and Java, C# apps have blown Java out of the water in speed. Microsoft simply did a better VM implementation than Sun. If this means my Java apps will run fast on Windows machines, and with a standard UI set (instead of the ugly Swing or almost-implemented-ok AWT), then more power to them. Sun got complacent with their VMs, hopefully this will force them to spend more time flushing out Java... Prolly not though...
C# is so closely related to Java, that there is no need for J#. MS has already started up marketing to get Java developers to try C#. I am a Java developer, and if I was forced to use a .NET language, I'd chose C#. J# just seems like a redundant language. It makes no sense.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Schnapple
"almost-implemented-ok AWT"?
Are you serious?
Bill, your skirts are showing.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Wrong.
The definition of "open source" includes several important points beyond simpy allowing people to see the code. Microsoft's insulting "Shared Source" license fails several of these points.
Most notable is free redistribution. As the OSI puts it:
Other notable trouble points with MS "shared source" include the OSI conditions of no discrimination against persons or groups and non-restriction of other software.
Since when has Microsoft ever competed on merits?
Microsoft has always competed on merits. Your mistake is that you equate "merits" with "characteristics that please the geeks on Slashdot".
But in order to make it possible to have an environment where a programmer writes that simple 10 lines of code in a VB dot Net application, it requires a number of Microsoft workstation and server software packages and servers working collaboratively, and properly configured. To create that illusion of a graceful swan easily sailing across the Visual Studio pond, one must look under the surface to see all the mad paddling done to configure and deploy the many servers and services required to make the magic happen, as well as to create the special Microsoft pond of network services in which this environment works. There's enough back-end work to set up the dot Net environment, securely and reliably, that can rival or exceed the work necessary for similar J2EE applications. Your VB dot net developer needs a platoon of MCSE's, DBAs, XML wizards, plus a barge load of dot net compatible servers and services to carry off the magic. It's certainly not just simple point, click, type a few lines of code, and deploy the magic. Adding in the proper security, performance design considerations, and proper object design takes weeks, just like with other good web service design tools.
It's my understanding that Microsoft isn't trying to push J# as a new platform, but rather to support small existing J++ users to migrate to .Net.
J# isn't meant to run on a JVM. It's just one of the .Net family of languages.
.Net languages are compiled to the same "bytecode" that MS calls MSIL. J# is no exception. It is compiled to MSIL, not to Java bytecode.
.Net framework in a thing called the "common language runtime", which is similar to a JVM, but designed from the start to *try* to accommodate as wide a range of source languages as possible.
.Net doesn't limit you to doing everything in a single language. (However, it *does* currently limit you to Windows only, quite unlike Java, but that's changing quickly.
.Net applications. When Ximian's Mono Project is fully up and running (Go Mono!), the MSIL output from J# will become executable on a Linux box. When that happens, a Java programmer who wants to deploy on Linux will suddenly have two excellent class frameworks to choose from: the Java standard and .Net.
All
Whether you prefer to write your source in Java (using J#), or C#, or VB.Net, or Perl.Net, or whatever, the source gets compiled to the same MSIL.
The MSIL code then runs on the
After they become MSIL, they are completely interchangable, regardless of their original source language. You could grab a cool C# utility class off the Web somewhere and use Java "extends" to write a subclass in Java. If you find it easier to parse text with Perl than with Java (who doesn't?), then you could write just the text parser classes in your Java app in Perl.Net.
The idea is that you get to work in a source language that you choose. Unlike the Java world,
The point of J# is to let Java lovers use Java to create
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Before anyone starts bashing J# to say that it should have never been created and M$ is the anti-christ and bla bla bla.. There are a few good reasons. No matter what you may think, people will accually program in .net. It's not that bad. It's accually a HUGE improvement to programming RAD apps in windows. The best RAD development for windows prior to this was VB or Delphi, and I Think C# is a good compromise between C++, Java, and VB. They tried to capture the syntax of java with the flexibility of c++ and the RAD capabilities of VB. In general it was a good idea. The reason having J# is such a good thing is i can now take the code i've already written for java, put it in a project and compile it as a windows dll. Lets say I wrote an extensive library for software in Java and wanted to port it to a windows app i'm working on a year+ down the line, then it will come in real handy.
What microsoft fails to realize is that the idea of coding in J# by itself is ludicrus because The whole point of Java is it's ALREADY cross platform, and just like .NET it runs on VM. J# is for those people who have already coded in java and want to use it in a windows only project. If you just read between the lines it's Microsoft's sleezy way to try and bring more attention to Windows and .NET in general. More a convience and marketing ploy than anything people will pratically use.
Worst case you could just not learn C# in general and write it all in Java, but this is mixing java and the .NET framework, which i'd rather keep separate.
- tristan
...some people aren't as flexible as you are when it comes to languages.
.Net and Java when using, well, Java.
.Net (the convenience depending on how much they rely on the Java class libs).
I'm with you. I think C# is Java-done-better (referring to the source languages only). It has all kinds of improvements over Java that many of us Java programmers have been asking for for years. I intend to use C# when using
But a lot of people learned Java as their first and only language and will drag their heels or spout sanctimonious anti-.Net rhetoric based on little more than a secret fear of having to leave the Java nest.
J# will help people like this (after they get comfy with J#, they'll be much closer to C#), it will help users of the old J++, and it may make it a bit easier to port various useful Java utilities over to
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
It's not necessary for MS to create .Net for other platforms. We're not at the mercy of MS.
.Net support and can't get it from MS, they'll get a huge headstart from the LGPL'ed Mono code.
Even Java gets support for most of its many platforms from entities other than Sun.
.Net on Linux is already well on it's way. It's called theMono Project by Ximian, the same people who created Gnome. If developers on other platforms want to have
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
It's that simple.
Many prominent language designers and experts such as Bertrand Meyer and Herb Sutter disagree with you...But I guess you know more than they do, eh?
The point is not to help programmers out, it's to leverage programmers who feel that they're comfortable with Java and move them to a closed, propriatary environment.
May we never see th