It seems to me that for 95% of the web sites in operation, by the time you finish building the MVC app in Java using Struts you could have coded it 3 times in PHP or Perl?
This comes up from time to time and I think it's a good question. There was an good discussion about this on the jakarta-general mailing list. It's a long thread, but if you'd like you can start reading at
this point. The best part of it I think is this response by Jon Scott Stevens:
Java is not the fastest technology to develop in, however, it produces the
best code for the long term.
PHP is the fastest technology to develop in, however, it produces the
crappiest code for the long term.
I develop Scarab in Java because it is going to live far longer than I do
and needs a solid base to work from.
I develop my bar's website in PHP because I just needed to get the job done
quickly and was not concerned with code quality.
Remember, PHP originally stood for Personal Homepage Parser. Java's web application technology was designed from the start to be a solution for a large "enterprise" class web site. You can do more with Java but you definitely take a hit in initial development time. Personally I feel that in the end, Java is easier to maintain and extend (but you may disagree).
By the way, Yahoo! didn't go with Java because of the Java threads implementation on FreeBSD. It didn't have anything to do with the merits of the java language. (See
Why not JSP, Servlets, or J2EE?)
I don't think anyone will claim you have to use third party applications to create an MVC-based web app. In fact, if you look at the core of Struts, it's rather simple (which IMHO is what makes it so nice). Any decent java developer could write something similiar and many have.
I think the point is, why go it alone? When you can have hundreds of developers all working on and testing the same framework you end up with a lot more features and much more stable code. Sure I could write my own controler servlet (which is what Struts mostly is), but personally, I don't really want to have to write up the validation scheme, the internationalization features, the tag libs that make it easier to work with, and so on. With Struts, it's all there to begin with and it works. Additionally, when I hand over a Struts project to another developer or team, I can just say, "Oh, it's Struts based" and immediately they have access to host of documentation and an entire user community for support. I don't have to sit down and teach them how my special MVC magic works.
I could go on, but I really find using a popular stable project like Struts has a lot of advantages. And yes, Struts is not perfect. There are lot of other good frameworks out there. It just so happens that Struts is very close to how I and my coworkers developed web apps to begin with, so the convertion factor was minimal and the gain was incredible.
Uhh, the fact that Linux started as a hobby and still exists as a hobby has perhaps escaped you? That some opportunists would like to turn it into something more does not change the fact the Linux is and always will be a "hobby" at heart.
I've been following the Lindows product since it's first annoucement, but I haven't used it at all (I'm not willing to pay $99 for beta-open-source-software [especially considering the high quality of many other distros]). It surprises me that Lindows rather than RedHat or Mandrake or even Lycoris is causing all the fuss. My impression has been it's a distro [or I should say a CEO named Robertson] that makes a lot of noise but isn't necessarily the best out there. Some might argue that making noise is enough. Perhaps it's enough to get MS and the press to notice, but if the product's crap, then the businesses and users who switch will be return to MS's camp quickly. Anyone using Lindows willing to point out how great it is or isn't? Does it really have a chance?
Okay, I'll admit that I actually pay something like $19.99 a year to Yahoo! for POP3 access. Why? Glad you asked. Here's a summary:
Yahoo! Mail can be access anywhere. (So can most mail, but this is still important.)
I can use a browser or a regular email client application (like Mutt or Evolution). The advantages of having POP3 access are important to me. I can easily save my email and I can use the features I need and like from my mail application of choice.
When I email via POP3, I have NO Yahoo! advertisements attached.
Yahoo! isn't going away anytime soon.
The last one is why I choose to go with Yahoo!. My college email account will one day go away. I don't want to use (can't really) my work email for personal correspondence. I'm likely to move around the next couple of years, so my ISP will probably change (so there goes my ISP email account). There are other free email services, but none are as established as Hotmail or Yahoo!. And that's what it came down to. I wanted an email address that I could give out and not worry about it changing in a couple months, or even a couple years. If I decided to move to anywhere in the world, I would still have my Yahoo! email account. None of my other accounts have that stability. Few other online email providers can guarentee that kind of stability. Of course, Yahoo! could go out of business, or could sell off the email business, but that's a risk regardless of what I choose.
Additionally I find that Yahoo!'s spam filter works fairly well for me (better than Hotmail), it's interface is more lightweight than Hotmail, I can even access it via a links or lynx web browser. You can change your privacy policy settings so that you don't get spammed or sold out and the service is always up. I made the decision several months ago and I haven't been disappointed.
I was trying to point out the hypothetical if such perfect security were possible then what would the consequences be. But yes, you're right that even if the people were willing to give up their freedom for fairness and security all they would find would be an illusion. Sad, but true. Sad because those who search for such peace often honestly want it, but those who would offer it often know that they cannot deliver and merely use the trust of the public to enslave and grab power.
All they have to do to board a plane is not carry a fucking bomb, yet they complain when security gives them a pass with a metal detector. All they haveto do to cross the border from Canada to the US is not be going to the US to kill people.
Okay, first off these are two very different issues. Screening for bombs in airports should primary be the responsibility of the airline company, not the government. The government could decide to set standards and even perhaps help support such standards, but in the end, it's the airline company that must answer to the customers (and their families) about their security.
Border issues are different. In this case it is the responsibility of the government to 'secure our borders.' However, your arguement fails in this case. How is a border official to know if I want to kill people when I enter the country? Huh? Read my mind? You know that the highjackers of 9/11 were in the USA LEGALLY.
My point is, the ONLY way one can achieve the type of security you are asking for is to live in a police state and have ALL actions monitored by the government. Of course, even if that was possible, it's still not foolproof and crimes would still occur. But let's just say that somehow we have such technology and capability to do such monitoring. So now we have a perfectly safe society. But at what cost? And who is to decide what is safe and what is not? At what point do we stop protecting ourselves from ourselves?
I would rather live with the risk of crime and evil than live without freedom. Does that mean anarchy? No, not really. Like I said in my earlier post, there must always be a balance between security (fairness and protection) and freedom. But without freedom, an individual, a society, cannot properly learn, grow, or live.
I demand the Government stop all future terrorist attacks,
Actually, no I don't. I don't demand the government stop all terrorism. I don't demand the government stop all crime. I don't demand the government stop all war. I don't demand the government try to make life fair and perfect because the ONLY way that would happen is if the government could somehow minutely control every action of every citizen. I prefer NOT to live in such a police state.
Somehow, somewhere, someone thought that we should have both freedom and life should be fair. I'm sorry, but you have to pick one of the two and personally, I would rather have freedom, even if it means freedom for some idiot to shoot me. And I am perfectly willing to accept the consequences of freedom and not complain about it. Freedom means things won't be fair. Freedom means there will be abuses of rights and atrocities. However, I think the greater atrocity would be to live in a "safe" society where freedom is replaced by control. That's the only way the government could stop all terrorism or whatever other vice you pick.
That said, there should always be a balance between freedom and the stability that 'fairness' or 'security' brings. Choosing that balance is not trivial. However, just because you don't mind an instrusive government "protecting" you from terrorism doesn't mean others would rather risk violence in order to perserve certain freedoms.
Agreed. The summary of this article does a horrible job of describing the story. For those who don't wish to read the whole article, here's an excerpt:
Consider Drs. Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, French mathematical physicists and twins, who have recently been burning up the physics world with a novel and highly speculative theory about what happened before the Big Bang. Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with a new view of the moment before the universe began or simply earnest scientists who are in over their heads and spouting nonsense.
That said, the article basically gives the history of these two french physicists and why their recent work is controversial. Apparently these two did research trying to describe the momement of (or before?) the Big Bang which really hard and there's quite a bit of arguement within the physics community that the ideas are simply nonsense. So this opens up more arguements about the general quality of current research, of papers being published, of PhD's being given, etc.
Personally, I think the article itself is more gibberish than the research. There's lot of quotes but not much explaination of what the actual problems are and why this is causing such a fuss. Conseqently the article is hard to follow and not well written.
When people ask about heating in the winter, I just laugh.
I have to laugh at this one because I have the same situation (luxery?). With 11 computers in my extra "server" room and a nice PC with two monitors in my own bedroom, it's always nice and toasty.
I'm just glad to know I'm not the only one with a server farm in their house. And you know what, despite what everyone may say about being a geek or having a life, I love it!:)
Don't write Makefiles yourself. Instead write a script that translates simple build rules (foo.cpp -> foo.o -> foo.exe) into a custom Makefile for each platform. I went this route after battling for years with complex Makefile rules that never quite worked.
A wonderful alternative to make is Jakarta Ant. It's java based, but there are ways to get it to work with C/C++ files and compilers. You can create an entire build/test/deploy process with Ant.
Look, I love PIXAR movies. The CG is always awesome and I usually make it a point to see pretty much any computer animated film . . .
But what's with the 'Slashvertisements' lately. I mean, it'd be one thing if we had some article here that talked about the tech that went into it or something like that, but this is just the trailer! Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post? Maybe it's just a slow weekend...
Are you saying that performance shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding what "proper coding practices" are?
Yes. Now let me explain:
You're right that performance is important, and teaching performance techniques is important; however, there are times when that's not what you want to teach.
Example 1: Let's say we're going to teach a "hello world" application that displays "Hello World" in a web browser. Let's say I decide to do it with PHP or JSP or ASP and get the string from a database. Is that really the best way to print "Hello World?" No. Absolutely not. You'd just write the HTML and be done with it. In this case, you're trying to show how a technology works, not the best way to solve the "print 'hello world'" problem.
Example 2: For my work I recently did a simple Jakarta Struts example. It basically just queried a table from one of several databases and printed it out in HTML. It was overly complicated for just this task (did validation, internationalization, muliple views...). Now if I really wanted to put this application in a production environment, is this how I would code it? Probably not. It's overkill for this particular example. But what I was teaching was the techniques of database transactions, validatation, etc. We have other applications in development that do need these features. So what I was teaching was not "How to overly complicate your application." but "A trivial example using complicated techniques you will one day need to use." The problem with this comes when developers cannot understand when such features are needed and when they're overkill.
Back to our Java vs.NET example. I think the argument being made here is that Sun did a 'trivial' example to show how things work. Microsoft just wrote the (to use my previous example) 'html' version of 'hello world'. Is Microsoft's approach wrong? No, that's probably how you should write such an application. The problem comes when you try to compare and benchmark the two. So Middleware tries to rewrite the Java version to optimize it and it's still bad. Conclusion? Well, the whole point of this discussion is that Rickard Öberg claims that Middleware didn't do a proper job of rewriting it.
I do agree with some other posters that it would be nice to see someone take the java petstore example and really do it right. Perhaps.NET would still win. Fine. That's great. But until then, spreading inconclusive results is only spreading more FUD.
Java is not perfect, granted. EJB's are not always best, granted. But to say that just because EJB's aren't always a good solution therefore "J2EE blows", isn't that a bit of a leap? There are alternatives to EJB's you know. It's possible to write a full J2EE app without ever touching them.
using the design that Microsoft proposes as best for their product (apparently they forgot to consult you, though) versus the design that Sun proposes for their product.
That's the problem though. These "benchmarks" are comparing different applictions designed to do different things. Sun does an app for an example of how to use J2EE technology. It wasn't designed for performance, in fact, in many cases the petstore approach is complete overkill. Sun knows that, most Java programmers know that. The petstore app has been heavily criticized for it. However, Sun's point was to show new Java programmers how the different J2EE API's work together. If some poor sap thinks that every app needs designed this way, well, they'll learn quickly otherwise I hope.
Microsoft then takes an app designed for performance and compares it to one that isn't. It's apples and oranges here folks. That's the point. The arguement made here is that when the Middleware company redid the benchmarks and the Java petstore app, that they still didn't do it properly.
If it turns out that.NET is faster, so be it. But let's have a fair race. That's all I'm trying to point out. That's all Rickard Öberg is trying to point out in his review.
The article has nothing to do with linux. It's about JAVA vs.NET which is a whole different ballpark. You're arguement about MS and their fine products makes no sense in this case. The Java programming language and environment is much more mature than.NET and is being used for many critical applications. When it comes to enterprise computing, Microsoft is a newbie and is just starting to produce something to consider, and if you would take time to really investigate the matter, you'd see that the benchmarks which suggest.NET as faster are generally flawed.
First off, you obviously didn't take time to read the articles. Do you have any idea what application we're talking about? It's the java "petstore" application, which specifically was not written for preformance, but for readbility and as an example for proper coding practices. MS wrote the code as an example in performance, but not as an example of good design patterns (although they claim it is).
From the article: It's quite amusing: Sun released the initial PetStore in order to show good architecture and use of design patterns but not performance, and now MS releases a PetStore that *does* have good performance but which is completely awful as far as use of good design patterns is concerned but which is supposed to show how to build.Net apps. Ironic.
How Sun writes a tutorial has nothing to do with how Solarius or their other apps are written. If anything, it shows that Sun was actually trying to teach developers about it's product, while Microsoft was just competing for headlines with no care about proper coding practices and about teaching such practices to the developers using.NET.
I'm developing a similiar system for my company. Since our development is almost all java based, I've been looking at tools developed by Apache Jakarta and XML groups (Ant, Gump, Cocoon,...). In general I'd like to base most of this on open source software since our budget is very small for this project and open source has lots of other advantages too. Do you [or anyone else] have any recommendations?
Others have stated it (including myself in another article), but there is a rational to having copyrights extend beyond death. The idea is that if copyrights last for say, someone's life time and I'm a publisher, then if I shell out money to publish an author's work, only to have the author hit by a bus the next day, then I'm screwed. Sure there are always risks, but the arguement is that by extending copyrights, then we "encourage" innovation by encouraging others to invest in innovation.
Now, that said, there are other solutions to the situation, like a static term of say 75 years. But my point here is that the real reason for the life + x time limit of the copyright was _not_ for the heirs, but for the publishers and investors.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that for 95% of the web sites in operation, by the time you finish building the MVC app in Java using Struts you could have coded it 3 times in PHP or Perl?
This comes up from time to time and I think it's a good question. There was an good discussion about this on the jakarta-general mailing list. It's a long thread, but if you'd like you can start reading at this point. The best part of it I think is this response by Jon Scott Stevens:
Java is not the fastest technology to develop in, however, it produces the best code for the long term.
PHP is the fastest technology to develop in, however, it produces the crappiest code for the long term.
I develop Scarab in Java because it is going to live far longer than I do and needs a solid base to work from.
I develop my bar's website in PHP because I just needed to get the job done quickly and was not concerned with code quality.
Remember, PHP originally stood for Personal Homepage Parser. Java's web application technology was designed from the start to be a solution for a large "enterprise" class web site. You can do more with Java but you definitely take a hit in initial development time. Personally I feel that in the end, Java is easier to maintain and extend (but you may disagree).
By the way, Yahoo! didn't go with Java because of the Java threads implementation on FreeBSD. It didn't have anything to do with the merits of the java language. (See Why not JSP, Servlets, or J2EE?)
I don't think anyone will claim you have to use third party applications to create an MVC-based web app. In fact, if you look at the core of Struts, it's rather simple (which IMHO is what makes it so nice). Any decent java developer could write something similiar and many have.
I think the point is, why go it alone? When you can have hundreds of developers all working on and testing the same framework you end up with a lot more features and much more stable code. Sure I could write my own controler servlet (which is what Struts mostly is), but personally, I don't really want to have to write up the validation scheme, the internationalization features, the tag libs that make it easier to work with, and so on. With Struts, it's all there to begin with and it works. Additionally, when I hand over a Struts project to another developer or team, I can just say, "Oh, it's Struts based" and immediately they have access to host of documentation and an entire user community for support. I don't have to sit down and teach them how my special MVC magic works.
I could go on, but I really find using a popular stable project like Struts has a lot of advantages. And yes, Struts is not perfect. There are lot of other good frameworks out there. It just so happens that Struts is very close to how I and my coworkers developed web apps to begin with, so the convertion factor was minimal and the gain was incredible.
Slashdot readers interested in improving the quality of their critical thinking skills...
:)
You've got to be kidding me right? Slashdotters? Thinking Skills? Someone ate too much turkey yesterday.
Tone down the hobbyist bent of Linux
Uhh, the fact that Linux started as a hobby and still exists as a hobby has perhaps escaped you? That some opportunists would like to turn it into something more does not change the fact the Linux is and always will be a "hobby" at heart.
I've been following the Lindows product since it's first annoucement, but I haven't used it at all (I'm not willing to pay $99 for beta-open-source-software [especially considering the high quality of many other distros]). It surprises me that Lindows rather than RedHat or Mandrake or even Lycoris is causing all the fuss. My impression has been it's a distro [or I should say a CEO named Robertson] that makes a lot of noise but isn't necessarily the best out there. Some might argue that making noise is enough. Perhaps it's enough to get MS and the press to notice, but if the product's crap, then the businesses and users who switch will be return to MS's camp quickly. Anyone using Lindows willing to point out how great it is or isn't? Does it really have a chance?
There's a yahoo! mobile access page that works well with 'links' at least. I haven't tried Lynx in a while.
The last one is why I choose to go with Yahoo!. My college email account will one day go away. I don't want to use (can't really) my work email for personal correspondence. I'm likely to move around the next couple of years, so my ISP will probably change (so there goes my ISP email account). There are other free email services, but none are as established as Hotmail or Yahoo!. And that's what it came down to. I wanted an email address that I could give out and not worry about it changing in a couple months, or even a couple years. If I decided to move to anywhere in the world, I would still have my Yahoo! email account. None of my other accounts have that stability. Few other online email providers can guarentee that kind of stability. Of course, Yahoo! could go out of business, or could sell off the email business, but that's a risk regardless of what I choose.
Additionally I find that Yahoo!'s spam filter works fairly well for me (better than Hotmail), it's interface is more lightweight than Hotmail, I can even access it via a links or lynx web browser. You can change your privacy policy settings so that you don't get spammed or sold out and the service is always up. I made the decision several months ago and I haven't been disappointed.
I agree.
I was trying to point out the hypothetical if such perfect security were possible then what would the consequences be. But yes, you're right that even if the people were willing to give up their freedom for fairness and security all they would find would be an illusion. Sad, but true. Sad because those who search for such peace often honestly want it, but those who would offer it often know that they cannot deliver and merely use the trust of the public to enslave and grab power.
All they have to do to board a plane is not carry a fucking bomb, yet they complain when security gives them a pass with a metal detector. All they haveto do to cross the border from Canada to the US is not be going to the US to kill people.
Okay, first off these are two very different issues. Screening for bombs in airports should primary be the responsibility of the airline company, not the government. The government could decide to set standards and even perhaps help support such standards, but in the end, it's the airline company that must answer to the customers (and their families) about their security.
Border issues are different. In this case it is the responsibility of the government to 'secure our borders.' However, your arguement fails in this case. How is a border official to know if I want to kill people when I enter the country? Huh? Read my mind? You know that the highjackers of 9/11 were in the USA LEGALLY.
My point is, the ONLY way one can achieve the type of security you are asking for is to live in a police state and have ALL actions monitored by the government. Of course, even if that was possible, it's still not foolproof and crimes would still occur. But let's just say that somehow we have such technology and capability to do such monitoring. So now we have a perfectly safe society. But at what cost? And who is to decide what is safe and what is not? At what point do we stop protecting ourselves from ourselves?
I would rather live with the risk of crime and evil than live without freedom. Does that mean anarchy? No, not really. Like I said in my earlier post, there must always be a balance between security (fairness and protection) and freedom. But without freedom, an individual, a society, cannot properly learn, grow, or live.
I demand the Government stop all future terrorist attacks,
Actually, no I don't. I don't demand the government stop all terrorism. I don't demand the government stop all crime. I don't demand the government stop all war. I don't demand the government try to make life fair and perfect because the ONLY way that would happen is if the government could somehow minutely control every action of every citizen. I prefer NOT to live in such a police state.
Somehow, somewhere, someone thought that we should have both freedom and life should be fair. I'm sorry, but you have to pick one of the two and personally, I would rather have freedom, even if it means freedom for some idiot to shoot me. And I am perfectly willing to accept the consequences of freedom and not complain about it. Freedom means things won't be fair. Freedom means there will be abuses of rights and atrocities. However, I think the greater atrocity would be to live in a "safe" society where freedom is replaced by control. That's the only way the government could stop all terrorism or whatever other vice you pick.
That said, there should always be a balance between freedom and the stability that 'fairness' or 'security' brings. Choosing that balance is not trivial. However, just because you don't mind an instrusive government "protecting" you from terrorism doesn't mean others would rather risk violence in order to perserve certain freedoms.
Agreed. The summary of this article does a horrible job of describing the story. For those who don't wish to read the whole article, here's an excerpt:
Consider Drs. Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, French mathematical physicists and twins, who have recently been burning up the physics world with a novel and highly speculative theory about what happened before the Big Bang. Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with a new view of the moment before the universe began or simply earnest scientists who are in over their heads and spouting nonsense.
That said, the article basically gives the history of these two french physicists and why their recent work is controversial. Apparently these two did research trying to describe the momement of (or before?) the Big Bang which really hard and there's quite a bit of arguement within the physics community that the ideas are simply nonsense. So this opens up more arguements about the general quality of current research, of papers being published, of PhD's being given, etc.
Personally, I think the article itself is more gibberish than the research. There's lot of quotes but not much explaination of what the actual problems are and why this is causing such a fuss. Conseqently the article is hard to follow and not well written.
When people ask about heating in the winter, I just laugh.
:)
I have to laugh at this one because I have the same situation (luxery?). With 11 computers in my extra "server" room and a nice PC with two monitors in my own bedroom, it's always nice and toasty.
I'm just glad to know I'm not the only one with a server farm in their house. And you know what, despite what everyone may say about being a geek or having a life, I love it!
Don't write Makefiles yourself. Instead write a script that translates simple build rules (foo.cpp -> foo.o -> foo.exe) into a custom Makefile for each platform. I went this route after battling for years with complex Makefile rules that never quite worked.
A wonderful alternative to make is Jakarta Ant. It's java based, but there are ways to get it to work with C/C++ files and compilers. You can create an entire build/test/deploy process with Ant.
Yeah, Slashdot is painfully slow here in PA. On a T1 too.
Look, I love PIXAR movies. The CG is always awesome and I usually make it a point to see pretty much any computer animated film . . .
But what's with the 'Slashvertisements' lately. I mean, it'd be one thing if we had some article here that talked about the tech that went into it or something like that, but this is just the trailer! Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post? Maybe it's just a slow weekend...
Are you saying that performance shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding what "proper coding practices" are?
.NET example. I think the argument being made here is that Sun did a 'trivial' example to show how things work. Microsoft just wrote the (to use my previous example) 'html' version of 'hello world'. Is Microsoft's approach wrong? No, that's probably how you should write such an application. The problem comes when you try to compare and benchmark the two. So Middleware tries to rewrite the Java version to optimize it and it's still bad. Conclusion? Well, the whole point of this discussion is that Rickard Öberg claims that Middleware didn't do a proper job of rewriting it.
.NET would still win. Fine. That's great. But until then, spreading inconclusive results is only spreading more FUD.
Yes. Now let me explain:
You're right that performance is important, and teaching performance techniques is important; however, there are times when that's not what you want to teach.
Example 1: Let's say we're going to teach a "hello world" application that displays "Hello World" in a web browser. Let's say I decide to do it with PHP or JSP or ASP and get the string from a database. Is that really the best way to print "Hello World?" No. Absolutely not. You'd just write the HTML and be done with it. In this case, you're trying to show how a technology works, not the best way to solve the "print 'hello world'" problem.
Example 2: For my work I recently did a simple Jakarta Struts example. It basically just queried a table from one of several databases and printed it out in HTML. It was overly complicated for just this task (did validation, internationalization, muliple views...). Now if I really wanted to put this application in a production environment, is this how I would code it? Probably not. It's overkill for this particular example. But what I was teaching was the techniques of database transactions, validatation, etc. We have other applications in development that do need these features. So what I was teaching was not "How to overly complicate your application." but "A trivial example using complicated techniques you will one day need to use." The problem with this comes when developers cannot understand when such features are needed and when they're overkill.
Back to our Java vs
I do agree with some other posters that it would be nice to see someone take the java petstore example and really do it right. Perhaps
Java is not perfect, granted. EJB's are not always best, granted. But to say that just because EJB's aren't always a good solution therefore "J2EE blows", isn't that a bit of a leap? There are alternatives to EJB's you know. It's possible to write a full J2EE app without ever touching them.
using the design that Microsoft proposes as best for their product (apparently they forgot to consult you, though) versus the design that Sun proposes for their product.
.NET is faster, so be it. But let's have a fair race. That's all I'm trying to point out. That's all Rickard Öberg is trying to point out in his review.
That's the problem though. These "benchmarks" are comparing different applictions designed to do different things. Sun does an app for an example of how to use J2EE technology. It wasn't designed for performance, in fact, in many cases the petstore approach is complete overkill. Sun knows that, most Java programmers know that. The petstore app has been heavily criticized for it. However, Sun's point was to show new Java programmers how the different J2EE API's work together. If some poor sap thinks that every app needs designed this way, well, they'll learn quickly otherwise I hope.
Microsoft then takes an app designed for performance and compares it to one that isn't. It's apples and oranges here folks. That's the point. The arguement made here is that when the Middleware company redid the benchmarks and the Java petstore app, that they still didn't do it properly.
If it turns out that
Apparently I'm a sucker for trolls today.
.NET which is a whole different ballpark. You're arguement about MS and their fine products makes no sense in this case. The Java programming language and environment is much more mature than .NET and is being used for many critical applications. When it comes to enterprise computing, Microsoft is a newbie and is just starting to produce something to consider, and if you would take time to really investigate the matter, you'd see that the benchmarks which suggest .NET as faster are generally flawed.
The article has nothing to do with linux. It's about JAVA vs
Okay, this is a troll, but I'll bite.
.Net apps. Ironic.
.NET.
First off, you obviously didn't take time to read the articles. Do you have any idea what application we're talking about? It's the java "petstore" application, which specifically was not written for preformance, but for readbility and as an example for proper coding practices. MS wrote the code as an example in performance, but not as an example of good design patterns (although they claim it is).
From the article: It's quite amusing: Sun released the initial PetStore in order to show good architecture and use of design patterns but not performance, and now MS releases a PetStore that *does* have good performance but which is completely awful as far as use of good design patterns is concerned but which is supposed to show how to build
How Sun writes a tutorial has nothing to do with how Solarius or their other apps are written. If anything, it shows that Sun was actually trying to teach developers about it's product, while Microsoft was just competing for headlines with no care about proper coding practices and about teaching such practices to the developers using
While it doesn't have some of the features and templates that Visio does, Dia is a free (GPL) alternative.
http://www.geekstyle.co.uk/ntkmart.cgi#Corrupt
It's linked from one of the articles
I'm developing a similiar system for my company. Since our development is almost all java based, I've been looking at tools developed by Apache Jakarta and XML groups (Ant, Gump, Cocoon,...). In general I'd like to base most of this on open source software since our budget is very small for this project and open source has lots of other advantages too. Do you [or anyone else] have any recommendations?
I always wondered how to get past that stupid snake...
:)
Now if I could just get the bird in the cage...
Others have stated it (including myself in another article), but there is a rational to having copyrights extend beyond death. The idea is that if copyrights last for say, someone's life time and I'm a publisher, then if I shell out money to publish an author's work, only to have the author hit by a bus the next day, then I'm screwed. Sure there are always risks, but the arguement is that by extending copyrights, then we "encourage" innovation by encouraging others to invest in innovation.
Now, that said, there are other solutions to the situation, like a static term of say 75 years. But my point here is that the real reason for the life + x time limit of the copyright was _not_ for the heirs, but for the publishers and investors.