Slashdot Mirror
Java Vs. C#: Which Performs Better In the 'Real World'?
Nerval's Lobster writes "Software developer Jeff Cogswell writes: 'Let's compare Java and C#, two programming languages with large numbers of ardent fans and equally virulent detractors. I'm not interested in yet another test that grindingly calculates a million digits' worth of Pi. I want to know about real-world performance: How does each language measure up when asked to dish out millions of Web pages a day? How do they compare when having to grab data from a database to construct those pages dynamically? The results were quite interesting.' Having worked as a professional C# programmer for many years, Cogswell found some long-held assumptions challenged."
Before I get modded troll, I'd like to point out that there is a really awesome C++ toolkit for web development and it will blow your mind. It's called Wt and it makes your applications fully OOP and a joy to develop in. One really awesome feature is that it is Boosted and another awesome feature is smart with regard to data. It will use where apropriate (usually you use the AJAX version of a control or mark a function for export to javascript) AJAX rather than statically filling your page. The result are some really easy to code fast websites.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Test 2: A function to generate a "full web site", (actually a simple web page with all the elements and trivial content). Java beats C# hands down.
Conclusion:
1. The testing guy has absolutely no idea of how to write low level function efficiently.
2. The testing guy's idea of a "full web site" is woe fully inadequate. He could have been the guy designing "full continental breakfast" in Roach Motel Inc.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I been a Java developer for 8 years, worked at several different consulting companies and large in-house corporate environments. I've never seen Windows+Tomcat being used in an actual production setup. For development, yes, almost always. But Linux+Tomcat is much more common for live servers in my experience. At least it is in today's business world.
You must not work in the education sector. PowerSchool is becoming quite popular in many districts (at least where I live) these days and Windows and Mac are all they support. They most commonly set up Tomcat + Oracle on Windows servers.
Yay PowerSchool. For over a year, they didn't even support sFTP. Most of their customers transferred student data over the Internet with no VPN using FTP. Should have seen all the SSN, name, and address data for both students and teachers that was transferred. Not to mention their data is messy.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Pearson is a private company. It is not an academic institution. You can blame this on bureaucracy in large institutions making bad choices, but teachers don't get a say on this stuff. The leadership does.
You've never been in education, have you? It shows.
"Educators" are the actual teachers. They have near zero say in what systems get selected, and those doing the selecting seldom have any experience in being an educator, and usually the selection committee ("Committee Decisions: Because you can't fire the committee") is judging the software on features and functionality, not on underlying technology.
If there is someone in a specific educational organization who has specific architectural biases against Windows, I can assure you they have nothing to do with system selection, only implementation.
And what are the VIABLE alternatives? Professionally I've worked with several educational institutions that have made a run at being all Macintosh, and it has always been a dismal and expensive failure on the back end. They all migrated to Windows servers and kept Macs only for teachers and students, if that.
Linux may be viable for some functions, but with most of these things it boils down to dollars. Linux may be "free" but support isn't, and finding people who can support it is expensive for school districts, at least a datacenter level and not a kludged whitebox install level. Maintaining an all-Linux backend usually requires a lot of high level administrative support and the administrators I can guarantee you are looking at COST first THEN functionality and they will ALWAYS see a Microsoft-based solution as inherently cheaper "because we already do that."