Slashdot Mirror


Advantages Of .NET Over Java

ansonyumo writes "ZDNet is carrying an article written by one John Carroll that outlines specific advantages of .NET over Java. It's written from the point of view of a Java advocate who has 'seen the light.' First of all, comparing .NET and Java isn't very fair; you have to compare .NET and J2EE. When you level the playing field, most of his arguments readily fall apart."

34 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. even if his arguments fall apart... by rumpledstiltskin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when you compare to the correct language structure, so what? What's important is PHB's will probably be reading articles like that, and will point to said articles in justifying going with a microsoft centric language (along with IEEE, ECMA standardization, etc.) The article simply underscores that a wide and varied skillset is what's going to keep a developer alive in today's environment. Sun's not exhibiting the best of business decisions lately, and if they want to stay afloat, they need to come up with someone to answer .Net effectively in popular media. Posting articles on slashdot saying "look at this! it's not accurate!" isn't a great way to promulgate usage of your favorite language either...

  2. In Bizarro world.. by L.+VeGas · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not surprisingly, ZDJava has an article that praises Java over .NET

  3. Re:universal? is mono complete? by rmull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mono is not complete. It is not even yet comparable to the "Shared Source" version, which is less complete than the windows verison.

    Though I've had limited experience with .NET, and only then with C# on BSD, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the standard library was designed around COM and Windows in general. Many parts of the standard library are crippled to the least-common denominator of the .NET platform: visual basic. What does this mean? No interoperability with unsigned data types, for one.

    Incidentally, the article's claims that there are no equivalences to ".class" files in .NET is completely false. They have these things called "netmodules" which are just that, as far as I can tell. There is very little documentation on the subject.

    To finish ranting, any claims that .NET is an "open" platform are for the most part just false.

    --
    See you, space cowboy...
  4. Lets break this down... by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So, according to this guy, the advantages are:
    1. XML property files
    2. Better reflection support
    3. No individual class files, only improved class bundles called "Assemblies" (this is a good thing)?!?
    4. ".Net Remoting" - basically RMI with support for any .NET language

    First off, I have to give him some credit. This is the first time I've ever seen a specific breakdown of exactly what .NET is good at that Java isn't. And he's right, these things are pretty cool (except maybe for #3).

    But would I trade J2EE for this? Not on your life. All of this stuff can be done in one way or another with Java, and Java is still way more mature in most respects. I mean, I'm assuming that since he chose to highlight these features, they're probably the most significant, and if this is the best that .NET has to offer over Java, the choice is clear for me.

    If I was going to develop a new Windows app, I'd be doing it in .NET, no question. But when it comes to cross-platform or enterprise level development, .NET is not ready for prime time.
    1. Re:Lets break this down... by bwt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't find #1 persuasive. If you want XML in Java, you use XML tools. Properties aren't XML, they are properties. They SHOULD be simple as in my.properties.property2="bingo" . If you want XML, just use XML. Java has the best XML tools of any language there is.

      #2 is OK, but if you can find the methods, you can find anything, so what is the advantage?

      #3 is just odd. Java has jar, war, ejb-jar, etc... archives and also has classes by their lonesome. .Net has only archives. How is this better?

      #4 is a joke. RMI is cake if you can rely on the OS being the same. The hard part is cross-platform, not cross-language RMI. This is still a problem which java solves well and in multiple ways by relying on open standards (surprise) which explains why it is the dominant language for enterprise computing and middleware. I want a language that I can write code for and be assured that I can deploy that code in a client app on Windows or Mac or Linux, in a web server running windows or linux, and on a data tier box running Unix or Linux. .Net doesn't meet this requirement and basically isn't usefull to me.

    2. Re:Lets break this down... by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think you read the article.

      #1: You referred to property get/sets, but that isn't what the author was talking about. He was talking about external configuration files, environment configuration files, an serialization.

      #2: The author explicitly lists what information, beyond the methods, you can get from .NET. To briefly reiterate, he listed meta-information about methods which is necessary to make it truly useful. Knowing a method name and parameters isn't the whole deal.

      #3: You ask "how is this better?" which is exactly what page 3 of the article describers. The author explicitly lists advantages of archives over JAR files. He points out that it isn't a magnanimous difference, but he certainly answers your question.

      #4: You've obviously never done cross-language RMI. One of the running Jokes about Java is that Java is great at communicating with other languages: so long as the other langauge is Java. Microsoft has taken cross-language support to a new level - which is one of the things that really attracts VB, Java, and C++ developers to .NET.

    3. Re:Lets break this down... by scotartt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "enterprise level... I wonder if Java is ready for prime time. One of our departments has to restart their Websphere environment 4 times a day to keep it running. We haven't seen those problems with our .Net deployments. "

      Websphere runs more enterprise critical application installations than .Net even dreams about. If you have to restart websphere 4 times a day then obviously you have done something wrong.

      And you know what? It only highlights the J2EE advantage. Don't like Websphere? Try Weblogic. Ohh Weblogic is too expensive? Install Sun One off your Solaris disks. Don't want the all-Sun lock-in? Download the free alternative JBoss. Can't figure JBoss out? Try and look at the Oracle 9i app server. Don't own any Oracle licences? Go and buy Macromedia JRun.

      Now what hardware shall we deploy it on ... hmmm ... choice.

      And so on. Your app should run on all of those, unless your app is so poorly designed it won't run on any. But that's *your* problem and converting to .Net won't make your app any less poorly architected.

      --
      -A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed-
    4. Re:Lets break this down... by aminorex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      #1 Java also has XML serialization.

      #2 You can also introspect bytecode. Admittedly,
      it is not as well-developed as .NET in this respect,
      but there are no inherent limits.

      #3 I could not care less about, so no comment.

      #4 For cross-language, use CORBA. Java makes it
      trivial.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    5. Re:Lets break this down... by LizardKing · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've obviously never done cross-language RMI. One of the running Jokes about Java is that Java is great at communicating with other languages: so long as the other langauge is Java.

      A running joke that I've not encountered in six years of professional Java programming. CORBA make cross platform, language independent programming a breeze. My current employers hand crafted database (written in C and running on various Unix flavours), communicates very elegantly with a Java frontend via CORBA. For embedded systems too small to run Java, it's the same IDL files but a C based frontend using curses.

      Microsoft has taken cross-language support to a new level ...

      Really? Could my company do what I described above with .NET? Of course not, as we wouldn't be able to interface with our database. Our one attempt to get it running on Redmonds poor excuse for a server OS made us realise that we'd need considerably more powerful hardware, and more redundancy to cope with Windows little "foibles". So .NET's cross-language, but only if want to put up with Windows.

      Chris

    6. Re:Lets break this down... by ProfKyne · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, according to this guy, the advantages are: 1. XML property files

      Guess the guy doesn't know about java.util.prefs.Preferences.

      --
      "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
  5. The real question is.. by floydman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will system designers go after M$'s stuff after what M$'s attitude and history in the past 10-15 years been. I mean M$ proved that it does not seek best performance, is not after user's intrest, does not care for for service. It cares for the greens. In the past few years they did a lot of stuff that made it clear now that they were putting us in a box that can stick us to use there products only(with no respect to its quality)

    so the real question is are you willing to go through this again?

    /*Why is there a penguin on my desktop?!*/

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
    1. Re:The real question is.. by Slarty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, of course they will. You read Slashdot, so while you may not necessarily USE competing systems (Java or open source OS's), you're undoubtedly aware of them, and that Microsoft doesn't always make the best software or decisions.

      I work for a company that works solely on Windows software, and I can tell you, our system designers don't have the benefit of such knowledge. They are totally buying in to the .NET hype, and not without reason... .NET may not be the savior of the software world, but it IS a heckuva lot better than the old method of MFC or Win32 development. By far.

      Our designers are not stupid; they just seem incapable of thinking outside the Windows world. You don't know what "mindshare" means until you've seen this in action... Microsoft products have a total lock on their way of thinking. They just won't consider any alternatives, they use Microsoft stuff, and they LIKE it. A friend and I are gradually introducing open source stuff (an internal web app I wrote uses PHP and MySQL as opposed to ASP/SQL Server... and I had to fight for it!) but mostly, Microsoft is ALL THERE IS to them. That's why .NET will succeed, at least partially. You don't notice any problems with performance or security or service if you've never used an alternative (and be honest, many of the alternatives aren't that hot either).

      Unrelated rant... after all these years, why do people still think it's cool to refer to Microsoft as M$? I'm not defending Microsoft software or business practices, but come on. That's just childish. It's not like you're going to gain any real karma or respect by doing that, and it's not like you can't find enough to be mad at Microsoft about without resorting to petty name calling. It's not even original anymore.

      --
      Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
    2. Re:The real question is.. by MeanMF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our designers are not stupid; they just seem incapable of thinking outside the Windows world. You don't know what "mindshare" means until you've seen this in action... Microsoft products have a total lock on their way of thinking. They just won't consider any alternatives, they use Microsoft stuff, and they LIKE it. A friend and I are gradually introducing open source stuff (an internal web app I wrote uses PHP and MySQL as opposed to ASP/SQL Server... and I had to fight for it!) but mostly, Microsoft is ALL THERE IS to them.

      I'm the lead architect at a shop that also uses mostly Microsoft tools for internal development. Our development staff would not be considered to be great programmers, but they do have an excellent background in the industry we work in. VB is the perfect tool for this type of programmer (even VB.Net has a ways to go). I understand that you're talking about the designers in your company, but here's the reason I'm bringing this up. I have had to deal with consultants and one new hire in the past couple of years who have recommended bringing in or converting to open source software, and one who even went over my head to try to sell the idea to upper management (spectacularly unsuccessfully - he didn't make it past his probationary period, and it wasn't my decision). It may seem to them like I am brainwashed by Microsoft or that I am being closed-minded by asking them to write VB or ASP code that runs against SQL server - which is what they were hired to do in the first place - but in fact we are currently using the best tools for our particular environment. I don't know if this is the case in your organization, but it may not be Microsoft's "brain lock" abilities - it may just be that the designers have heard it all before and just aren't really interested in rehashing the same old debates. In our case if we completely eliminated all of the licensing costs for Microsoft development tools and SQL Server, I doubt that anybody would even notice the change in our IS budget. The money spent is well worth it to us.

    3. Re:The real question is.. by MeanMF · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even if you used Delphi you would be better off than VB...not an OSS thing but a general usability and code speed, reliability, quality dev environment thing.

      Not all decisions are made on which technology is better. There are other factors such as the availability of programmers, third party tools, and technical support. VB beats Delphi hands-down in all three cases. Usability, speed, and reliability are more than adequate with VB to make them non-issues for us.

      SQL Server is a load of crap as well.

      As far as SQL Server goes, we rely heavily on stored procedures so the availability of freebies is moot for the time being. We also use an accounting package and an HR package that need either SQL Server or Oracle to run, so even if we moved our internal applications to another platform we'd still need to support SQL Server. We used to use Sybase, but switched to MS after v7.0 came out. It was a relatively easy migration, and we were able to reduce our support and maintenance costs significantly.

      Incidentally, did you apply the Slammer patch?

      I applied the Slammer patch to our SQL servers over the weekend before the worm hit the 'net in full force. I missed one installation of MSDE which did end up getting infected and causing some slowness on our network. I can't say the same for our parent company, however. Their network was effectively down for almost 24 hours while they cleaned up. I ended up putting a firewall between us and the parent company as a result...

  6. .NET over Java? You have to be kidding me. by zulux · · Score: 4, Insightful



    I don't do a lick of Java or .NET programming - but I can tell you that .NET is usless for real work, on real computers.

    It's only available for x86 computers that run Windows.

    No mainframe support.
    No cluster support.
    No Solaris,Unix,*BSD,OS/2, Win95, Mac 9, Mac X, AIX, IRIX support.
    No Aplha, SPARC, PowerPC, Motoroal 68xxx suport.

    So sure, .NET may trounce Java if you want to make a Recipe-Card manager for Grandma - but if you have any heavy lifing infolved, forget it.

    * parts of the .NET language support facilities do run on other computers (C# looks like a good versoin of C for people who can't handle pointers) - but Microsoft keeps the .NET libraries close to their hearts.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    1. Re:.NET over Java? You have to be kidding me. by zulux · · Score: 4, Informative


      Mono [go-mono.org] is a clean-room implementation that runs natively on x86 Linux and interpreted on PPC, S390 and StrongARM.


      Mono is not .NET - it will not have Microsoft's .NET libraries.

      99.99% of all .NET applications won't run on Mono.

      Some C# programs can run on .NET and Mono - but not any appplication that uses the Microsoft .NET libraries (99.99% of them)

      Microsoft released [microsoft.com] the source to an implementation that compiles and runs on Windows, FreeBSD and MacOS 10.2.

      As per Microsoft license for this release, you can't do any comercial work with it. You can't modify it and distribute for comercial use.

      It's useless.

      Microsoft has horrible support for it's languages - they left their Pascal, Fortran, VB users without any support. FoxPRO will probably be next.

      I woulden't bet my future on .NET - not even Microsoft is releasing the next version of MS Office on .NET.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  7. J2EE response by wickedhobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of this is basically a load of crap. Plenty of people use XML for configuration issues. I personally still use text for most of my config files, just because it requires simpler and easier code.

    And all of the default configuration files in J2EE ARE xml. web.xml,ejb-jar.xml, whatever.

    Also, what's so great about having your "system wide " xml parser? In my world, you specifically don't create environment variables for your XML jar's because that makes it a common resource and creates conflicts. What if you want to use a different parser and both parsers have a class called XMLParser? How does MS deal with knowledge of which is which. J2EE servers (for the most part) simply provide application level resources (WEB-INF/lib and WEB-INF/classes) and server-level resources (app-server/lib).

    Next: Metadata: XDoclet provides this ability and a lot of people use it. More importantly, it's not tied. You can use your own system.

    Next: I honestly don't know enough about assemblies, but it does look like there are some cool things in there. I have to admit, CLASSPATH for Java can be clunky. However, JAR/EAR/WAR is pretty good stuff, and does most of what people need.

    Next: The remoting issue is a non-starter. The protocol is really up to the vendor, and some vendors provide proprietary, somy RMI/JRMP, some strict RMI-IIOP. SOAP also changes some of this (no advatages to either side).

    So blah, for the most part.

    --

    --Stupidity is Self Curing!
  8. No they don't by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    First of all, comparing .NET and Java isn't very fair; you have to compare .NET and J2EE. When you level the playing field, most of his arguments readily fall apart."

    .NET is not a specification for a distributed application server, J2EE is. The advantages or disadvantages quoted in the article in regards to .NET exist whether you're building a simple console application, a desktop forms-based client, a simple web app or a massively distributed, multi-tier one.

    I don't necessarily agree with the article itself in some points, but I can't see how the comparison is "unfair" because it's not being made to J2EE but the Java 'platform' (Sun's words, not mine) itself. C# vs. Java would be a completely different thing, but that would be based on the features of the language and the runtime library. J2EE is just an extension of that.

  9. Pet Store Performance/Cost comparisons by __aaanwh8370 · · Score: 2, Informative

    For more info, check this Register article:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/2 7833.html

    Its got some good benchmarks of real-world, optimized J2EE vs. .NET implementations of a Pet Store web store.

    Very informative (though obviously, benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt).

    1. Re:Pet Store Performance/Cost comparisons by pmz · · Score: 2, Informative

      For more info, check this Register article...

      Right at the end of your precious Register article is a link to another article that shows The Middleware Company to be the liars that they are.

      The J2EE vs. .NET benchmarks referenced above are a scam.

  10. .NET *is* better -- but so what? by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The meaningful comparisons I've seen come out in .NET's favor. The .NET VM is rather more robust. The libraries are more carefully thought out. (Can anyone consider AWT without nausea?) And C# is much more expressive than Java, without falling into the feature pit of C++.

    Still, I think .NET is going to be a disaster. Microsoft is trying to make it do too many things at once. To them, it's not just a new enterprise software platform. It's a fix for all the shortcomings of the NT API. It introduces all the new programming features they never tire of dreaming up. And it does all this while retaining support for legacy languages, such as C++. AND .NET is supposed to maintain an easy migration path for Java programmers -- one that will make it impossible for them not to switch.

    It just won't fly. They're trying to do too much, and they're making the same mistakes they made with NT and Win16. And even if they went at it right, .NET could never hope to make more than modest inroads into the Java marketplace. Too much investment in an established technology. (Microsoft ought to know better, given the way they've benefited from that same principle.) The best they can really hope for is to find a niche where .NET excels, such as Web Services. This would parallel the career of other technologies (Cobol, PL/1, SQL, and of course Java itself) that were supposed to take over the world, and ended up just finding their own place in it.

  11. C#/.Net vs. Java/Java by GCP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've used Java longer than the reviewer -- since it was an alpha. I still use it and am an official participant in the JCP. I plan to continue using Java, probably for years to come.

    That being said, I find the C# language to be significantly better designed than the Java language. Things like delegates are a great improvement over interfaces. When Anders Hejlsberg was still at Borland, he tried to persuade Sun to use them in Java instead of the interface approach and they just blew him off. "Syntactic sugar" they called it, and then they went ahead and implemented their own syntactic vinegar. I'll take the sugar, thank you.

    Using "properties" in an OO language is a natural.

    a.b.c++ calls a set() method instead of directly accessing a member var named c. (The c property may not even be backed by a variable. It may be calculated on demand.) In Java, to use OO methods instead of exposing private variables, you would do something like

    a.getB().setC(a.getB().getC()+1);

    although usually it would be broken into several simpler steps with temp variables for ease of reading.

    C# makes it a breeze to create visual interfaces to object properties without losing the encapsulation of the implementation of those properties.

    There are so many other improvements in C# relative to Java that it really annoys me to hear the political refrain "C# is just a knock off of Java". It's such a superior "knockoff" that, for the first time in years, Sun has gotten back in the mode of making language improvements (all of which make it more like the "knockoff") instead of their knee-jerk "you're not language designers so, trust us, you don't need that" reaction of the past.

    The Java class libraries are far more complete than those of .Net, though .Net's have the benefit of learning from Java's mistakes. (A nice, consistent way of converting between fundamental data types, well-designed containers, etc.)

    I now find myself in the position of using C# when I can (mostly for personal utilities) and Java when I must (for professional production). Since I strongly prefer to use Linux servers and strongly prefer to avoid the MS license ball-and-chain, I anticipate having to continue using Java for years.

    While doing so, though, I will continue rooting for Mono and working thru the JCP to try to steer the Java language to embrace and extend what I consider the significant advantages C# (and to some extent the .Net classes) have over Java. All the anti-MS bigots don't make that easy, though.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    1. Re:C#/.Net vs. Java/Java by Matt2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm interested to read your comments GCP as I'm a longtime Java programmer as well. When I read the C# spec I found that the vast majority of the language additions over Java were the classic Microsoft shortcuts that cloud a language and reduce clarity. This is of course with the one great exception of delegates, which I am totally in favour of.

      It seems there is a danger as we get more experienced with programming to want to get fancy with our syntax and so on, but I think Java neatly constrains this desire and guides us to write clearer programs. This is why projects in Java are so successful at producing reusable open source components, and using those components as building blocks.

      This is all involves personal preference of course. However, when I download a library for a program I'm working on I know there'll be an lower bound on how bad or obfuscated the code will be, most of the additions to C# lower that bound significantly.

      --

  12. Syntactic sugar by Alomex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not long after the Cobol disaster (too many syntactic niceties), the programming language community swung the other way and since the 1970s has opposed most niceties in a language as "syntactic sugar". Sure enough, the C code:

    x = y + z;

    is nothing but the syntactic sugared version of

    LDA Y
    ADD Z
    MV X

    SO?? Isn't the C version far superior nonetheless?

    1. Re:Syntactic sugar by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think you're really distorting the SS debate and the role of Cobol and C in that debate.

      The big mistake with Cobol is not that its syntax is too complex. Most early languages had that problem. But in Cobol's case, they made the silly assumption that a language with a superficial resemblance to ordinary English is somehow easier to learn. Thus in Cobol you can write:

      DIVIDE TOTAL BY NUMBER GIVING PRO-RATA REMAINDER RESIDUE.
      The problem is that Cobol is not a subset of English, it just looks like one. Cobol uses ordinary human constructs, but doesn't save the human from having to learn any abstractions.

      Detractors of C are fond of calling it "high level assembly language". I think that mostly comes from the use in C of pointers, which seem much too similar to machine language memory pointers. Now it's true that C pointers are not as sophisticated or foolproof as object references (Java and most other OOP languages), but they're still more than memory values. Consider,

      BIGDUDEDATASTRUCTURE d[DSIZE];
      for (i := 0; i < DSIZE; i++) chompchompchomp(d[i]);
      If you translate that to assembly, you'll see a difference that's a lot more than syntactic sugar.

      The basic issue between C++ and Java is not SS, but general complexity. So Java leaves out default parameters, operator overloads, and multiple inheritance, some other stuff.

    2. Re:Syntactic sugar by Alomex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Huh? I'm not saying that the only difference between C and assembly is syntactic sugar. Far from it.

      What I was pointing out that is that judicious amounts of syntactic sugar are extremely convenient to programmers, and hence simply being SS is not enough to dismiss a language feature. Yet this is routinely done in the programming language community, as illustrated by the real life example in the first message (not mine) of this thread.

    3. Re:Syntactic sugar by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The original message didn't characterize anything as syntactic sugar. It only said that C#-style delegates never got into Java because JavaSoft thought they were "syntactic sugar". And it sounds like this version of history comes from Anders Hejlsberg, the inventor of delegates. Given the long standing feud betwee Hejlsberg and JavaSoft both when he was at Borland and later at Microsoft, I doubt if the argument was as simple as that.

    4. Re:Syntactic sugar by pmz · · Score: 2, Funny


      Sheesh, lets at least use a "real" computer:

      save %sp, -0x70, %sp
      mov 0x1, %o1
      st %o1, [%fp - 0xc]
      mov 0x2, %o0
      st %o0, [%fp - 0x10]
      add %o1, %o0, %o0
      st %o0, [%fp - 0x8]
      st %o0, [%fp - 0x4]
      or %o0, %g0, %i0
      ret
      restore

  13. Only do it once! again. by WasterDave · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fabulous.

    "In contrast, XML permeates every corner of .Net."

    Last year all configuration was being held in Active Directory. The year before that all configuration was being held in the registry (I can't remember the name of the IIS specific registry thing to rant about it). The year before that we were all supposed to be using .ini files and on each occasion the Microsoft developer wankfest assured us that "THIS IS IT!!!".

    What is wrong with the world? It's almost like there's a constant torrent of naive Microsoft fanboys dropping into the workforce under the impression they're software engineers.

    Dave

    --
    I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
    1. Re:Only do it once! again. by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Last year all configuration was being held in Active Directory. The year before that all configuration was being held in the registry (I can't remember the name of the IIS specific registry thing to rant about it). The year before that we were all supposed to be using .ini files and on each occasion the Microsoft developer wankfest assured us that "THIS IS IT!!!".

      I bet the Next Great MS OS will use INI files again, but simply call it something completely different, like "angle-bracket-free XML" or something.

  14. The main reason people don't like .NET by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's owned/created by Microsoft.
    It's new and costs money/time/pain to switch, for hard to see benefits.

    (Justified in my opinion.)

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:The main reason people don't like .NET by primus_sucks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      instead of moaning about how long it is taking to get mono up and running, you should be helping.

      I would love to work on an awesome project like mono if I had the time. Right now I have a full-time job, I've been hacking on my own project for 2+ years, and I'm working on another little side project. Beleive me, it's not like I sit on the couch every night wondering when the mono-team will get their asses in gear:)

  15. Viva syntactic sugar! by GCP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand the aversion the Java designers felt for "syntactic sugar". They equated it with the spiral of Perl into syntactic chaos.

    I understand it, but don't accept it. I think that the best programming language is the one that makes you tell the computer the fewest number of things to get it to do exactly what you want it to do.

    I think the Java designers were way too conservative about syntax and way too conservative about incorporating popular, proven features from other languages. They should have had smarter enums than C++, not no enums. Smarter function pointers than C++ (delegates, for example) instead of no way to pass a single function as an argument, etc.

    And more syntactic sugar of the sort you see in Python and Ruby.

    Java is a very solid, valuable production platform as it is, but I think Java would be a better *language* if it were a little more like Python and less like a simplified C++.

    Of course, I could say the same about C#, which obviously didn't want to venture too far from the familiar features of Java, C++, and VB. My understanding, though, is that the designers of the underlying .Net runtime made a lot more effort to include features in the bytecode system that will enable languages to use generics, multiple dispatch, multiple inheritance, tail calls, and others, which could support more interesting languages (or new C# features) in the future than may be practical with the JVM. (I'm not an expert on that last point, so consider it a *rumor*).

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
  16. C#.NET vs Java by Tim12s · · Score: 2, Interesting

    C#.NET advantages come
    1) from taking everything good in java
    2) adding cleaner COM+ integration and windows integration.

    Thats it.

    Now Java 1.5 will fix alot of issues i have with java and it removes one of the reasons (1) for moving to C#.NET.
    (2) is going to be difficult for java to level. Having said that, (2) is the reason why .NET will last forever in general application development. App development with ATL, Win32, x,y,z is a nightmare in some respects. .Net will do for windows what Java has done for computing.