A lot less invasive would be to prevent the governor and legislature from "borrowing" from the pool of tax dollars that the gasoline tax is deposited into. Currently billions have been siphoned off to pay for other government spending with nothing but a long term IOU. Several years ago the people of California passed a referendum to prevent the legislature from spending this money on anything other than transportation infrastructure, but that's hardly deterred them from "borrowing" the money for other purposes.
I can't speak to their database because I've got better things to do with my time than become an expert on Oracle just to install and maintain a freakin' database...there are products out there that better meet my (and my clients') needs.
But regarding their ERP products, they suck ass. I worked for a competitor before starting my own company, and we lost a very large contract to Oracle. What was funny is that my partner paid a visit to that client later and found that 1.5 years later, they still we not live on Oracle financials and that paychecks were consistently incorrect. Then to top it off they could not print W-2's on time.
Bottom line, Oracle seems to have way over-extended themselves in the ERP market and the software/support is not ready.
Excellent post! You've obviously done your homework. My personal belief is that MADD is out of control and we need an organization that provides some rational input on this debate.
I think you're mistaken regarding the need for recompiling your C# source code before moving to Whidbey. First of all, generics are optional and there will still be a List class that is perfectly happy to take your Object-derived instances and hold them for you.
Since in.NET CLR a List is actually compiled into a list that only holds ints (and not objects), it actually has a completly different codepath then a List or List.
WTF are you talking about? The only way you're going to get an instance of a class that implements IList and only holds ints is to do this ArrayList intList = new ArrayList(); If you just choose ArrayList myList = new ArrayList(); you get a non-specialized version of the IList-supporting class. Me thinks you don't know what you're talking about.
Thus you have potentially hundreds of versions of the List code in memory.
If you have hundreds of specializations of the generic container, then yes, you will have have hundreds of new types inserted into the AppDomain. However, if you just instantiate a new non-specialized collection class, you don't get a new class definition.
Okay, please tell me what type of application development you do? Most associative arrays that I use map an ID to and instance. Say person ID to the container that holds that person. Please tell me how you're mapping a useful key to disparate object types, I'm just curious.
This is the topper:
Generics is also a pita because it doesn't actually solve all your problems.
No one said they're the silver bullet, but as someone else indicated, spend some time deriving classes from CollectionBase and you'll quickly appreciate having strongly typed collections with no heavy lifting on your part.
So a collection of boxed primitives in Java may be slower than non-boxed primitives in C#, but this was done so that a collection of normal objects is faster.
Faster than what? Faster than the Java implementation would have been had they done it properly (i.e. modify the byte code, not rely on type erasure, etc). Or are you saying that this ommision makes the Java generics implementation faster than the C# generics implementation?
You apparently do not understand generics. Generics are not keeping "a group of different objects in a collection". Generics allow just the opposite. Rather than having a container that accepts values of type Object, you specialize a generic container to only accept and return values of your type.
Actually, I was going to give an example, but rather I will instruct people to RTFA.
What do you mean by "dependencies *across the network*"? Are you referring to HREF application that rely on the Fusion loader? If so, what is your point? Is it that loading assemblies across a 100 Mb network is bad? Of course unless the version changes, they're only downloaded once.
And where is the parallel between.NET and MFC40.dll? There were a number of things that were bad about MFC40, esp. when they added new entry points but failed to change the version #. But I'm curious what specifically *your* issue with it is.
Um. So the point is that Apple does not make it easy for the battery to be replaced. Note the ipodbattery.com installation instructions: "Begin prying 6 cm down left or right seam..." and "insert screwdriver...". On a $400 device one should not have to pry the case open to replace the battery, would you not agree?
Give me a friggin' break! Have you looked at the batteries at ipodbattery.com? They're thin and rectangular and would be simple to make user-replaceable. It's not as if they're molded around internal components.
I think Apple was just looking to generate future revenue.
And what makes you think that you won't be able to change the graphics, or control layout at runtime? My understanding is that the XAML represents the layout of the window at the time of creation. After that you're free to add/remove controls from the control container. If you want to change the graphics at runtime, then derive your own control and handle the paint event.
"It's from first hand experience benchmarking.NET applications I am actively developing. In fact the scalability factor sucks big time."
First of all, perhaps you should analyze how you're misusing the framework. I develop an application that is used by 400+ people at one major US entity, it is 100%.NET on the client and SQL Server on the backend. I have had 0 problems with performance on the backend and this app is not only highly-transactional, but also throws an OLAP front-end into the mix. You're obviously doing something wrong if you can't build a scalable enterprise application using.NET and SQL Server.
And quoting Brumme like that...no wonder you posted AC. If someone would like to read the Brumme blog, go here. It's all very good information.
How in the world did this get marked 'Troll'? This guy is right on and just because he doesn't support the/. Mac-fanboy position he gets moderated as a Troll. Come on...
Do you have a link to an article that explicitly states that Java generics are not expanded at compile time? Everything I've read (including JSR-000014, is there something more recent?) says that they are expanded at compile-time.
Thanks for the feedback on this. I don't know if you tried it, but you might want to use perfmon and track the private bytes of your applications (to begin with and others if that doesn't show the problem). Task Manager's memory usage is based on the working set of the application and not the actual memory that has been allocated to the application by the memory manager. The private bytes perf counter is the amount of non-shareable memory that the process has allocated from the memory manager.
Do you have documentation regarding this? That is, where can I read a *proper* write-up of this "memory leak"?
And what would possibly motivate you to work on this for a month? If this were a server OS then I could understand the effort, but for a desktop OS that in 99.9999% of cases does not run for more a day (let alone a month) your effort seems like a waste of time.
Small world...I attended Bishop schools. In fact it was 6th grade when Mr. Coleman got an Apple ][ and man, was that thing cool! In some ways I have to trace my programming career to my first Basic project done on that machine.
With regard to your list of shortcomings:
1. incorrect, I've used MSMQ in a situation where thousands of messages were processed every minute. You have to use non-transactional queues and make the messages non-recoverable, which keeps them from hitting disk. But with these settings I never had a problem with messages being lost, etc.
2. If SOAP is too heavy weight, then fine, use your own custom messaging format. And personally, I doubt it's SOAP that is causing the problem but rather it's what you're doing once the message is received.
3. SQL Server does not support C# for triggers now, but Yukon will. It will be nice when it does (SQL is not a general purpose language and writing complex SPs is a pain), but you need to provide more info regarding why this is a problem for you.
4. You state that you need to support 100+ users (how many does the + add?), so 200 concurrent database requests should work for you, right?
5. 30-50k leaves you with a lot of powerful iron! Check out Dell and I think you'll have no problems. Of course, Advanced Server for load balancing is not cheap...perhaps another appliance?
6. Uh, generating a lot of dynamic code or using a great deal of reflection is not the way you write high performance applications. It doesn't suprise me that you're finding this to be the case. Wrong tool for the job.
7. You can't compare an HTML page and a web service. They're apples and oranges. And let me tell you, using an ASP as an endpoint to process a post request will in no way out perform a web service.
8. Bullshit. Either your schema is the problem or you're writing bad queries. Sorry.
9. Uh, gee, yes real-time replication is expensive esp. when you have a lot of writes. That's just the way it is. Perhaps you can refactor in some way.
I think we need more information on the type of app your developing before we can offer you a solution, but I don't buy into your bulleted list.
Would you please be so kind as to define your terms. Namely, what definition are you using for "power"? If your definition is that you must be able to use pointers, then C++ is more powerful than Java. In my case I might choose to define it as writing a particular application in the fewest lines, and in most of these cases Java or C# are far more "powerful" than C++.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot less invasive would be to prevent the governor and legislature from "borrowing" from the pool of tax dollars that the gasoline tax is deposited into. Currently billions have been siphoned off to pay for other government spending with nothing but a long term IOU. Several years ago the people of California passed a referendum to prevent the legislature from spending this money on anything other than transportation infrastructure, but that's hardly deterred them from "borrowing" the money for other purposes.
I can't speak to their database because I've got better things to do with my time than become an expert on Oracle just to install and maintain a freakin' database...there are products out there that better meet my (and my clients') needs.
But regarding their ERP products, they suck ass. I worked for a competitor before starting my own company, and we lost a very large contract to Oracle. What was funny is that my partner paid a visit to that client later and found that 1.5 years later, they still we not live on Oracle financials and that paychecks were consistently incorrect. Then to top it off they could not print W-2's on time.
Bottom line, Oracle seems to have way over-extended themselves in the ERP market and the software/support is not ready.
Do you have a reference for this information?
Excellent post! You've obviously done your homework. My personal belief is that MADD is out of control and we need an organization that provides some rational input on this debate.
Perhaps before correcting the spelling of others, you should correct your own poor selection of words?
.NET exists solely to displace Java? I didn't think so. You may carry on with your delusion...
From your original post:
"They are not bed in that..."
So, do you have anything to back up your claim that
Should have been this:
WTF are you talking about? The only way you're going to get an instance of a class that implements IList and only holds ints is to do this ArrayList intList = new ArrayList(); If you just choose ArrayList myList = new ArrayList(); you get a non-specialized version of the IList-supporting class. Me thinks you don't know what you're talking about.
If you have hundreds of specializations of the generic container, then yes, you will have have hundreds of new types inserted into the AppDomain. However, if you just instantiate a new non-specialized collection class, you don't get a new class definition.
Okay, please tell me what type of application development you do? Most associative arrays that I use map an ID to and instance. Say person ID to the container that holds that person. Please tell me how you're mapping a useful key to disparate object types, I'm just curious.
This is the topper: No one said they're the silver bullet, but as someone else indicated, spend some time deriving classes from CollectionBase and you'll quickly appreciate having strongly typed collections with no heavy lifting on your part.
You apparently do not understand generics. Generics are not keeping "a group of different objects in a collection". Generics allow just the opposite. Rather than having a container that accepts values of type Object, you specialize a generic container to only accept and return values of your type.
Actually, I was going to give an example, but rather I will instruct people to RTFA.
What do you mean by "dependencies *across the network*"? Are you referring to HREF application that rely on the Fusion loader? If so, what is your point? Is it that loading assemblies across a 100 Mb network is bad? Of course unless the version changes, they're only downloaded once. And where is the parallel between .NET and MFC40.dll? There were a number of things that were bad about MFC40, esp. when they added new entry points but failed to change the version #. But I'm curious what specifically *your* issue with it is.
Um. So the point is that Apple does not make it easy for the battery to be replaced. Note the ipodbattery.com installation instructions: "Begin prying 6 cm down left or right seam..." and "insert screwdriver...". On a $400 device one should not have to pry the case open to replace the battery, would you not agree?
Give me a friggin' break! Have you looked at the batteries at ipodbattery.com? They're thin and rectangular and would be simple to make user-replaceable. It's not as if they're molded around internal components. I think Apple was just looking to generate future revenue.
And what makes you think that you won't be able to change the graphics, or control layout at runtime? My understanding is that the XAML represents the layout of the window at the time of creation. After that you're free to add/remove controls from the control container. If you want to change the graphics at runtime, then derive your own control and handle the paint event.
"It's from first hand experience benchmarking .NET applications I am actively developing. In fact the scalability factor sucks big time."
.NET on the client and SQL Server on the backend. I have had 0 problems with performance on the backend and this app is not only highly-transactional, but also throws an OLAP front-end into the mix. You're obviously doing something wrong if you can't build a scalable enterprise application using .NET and SQL Server.
And quoting Brumme like that...no wonder you posted AC. If someone would like to read the Brumme blog, go here. It's all very good information.
First of all, perhaps you should analyze how you're misusing the framework. I develop an application that is used by 400+ people at one major US entity, it is 100%
How in the world did this get marked 'Troll'? This guy is right on and just because he doesn't support the /. Mac-fanboy position he gets moderated as a Troll. Come on...
Do you have a link to an article that explicitly states that Java generics are not expanded at compile time? Everything I've read (including JSR-000014, is there something more recent?) says that they are expanded at compile-time.
Thanks for the feedback on this. I don't know if you tried it, but you might want to use perfmon and track the private bytes of your applications (to begin with and others if that doesn't show the problem). Task Manager's memory usage is based on the working set of the application and not the actual memory that has been allocated to the application by the memory manager. The private bytes perf counter is the amount of non-shareable memory that the process has allocated from the memory manager.
Do you have documentation regarding this? That is, where can I read a *proper* write-up of this "memory leak"? And what would possibly motivate you to work on this for a month? If this were a server OS then I could understand the effort, but for a desktop OS that in 99.9999% of cases does not run for more a day (let alone a month) your effort seems like a waste of time.
Small world...I attended Bishop schools. In fact it was 6th grade when Mr. Coleman got an Apple ][ and man, was that thing cool! In some ways I have to trace my programming career to my first Basic project done on that machine.
Hmm, not quite super star. SQL Server is not an object oriented database, so I highly doubt that WinFS will be.
With regard to your list of shortcomings: 1. incorrect, I've used MSMQ in a situation where thousands of messages were processed every minute. You have to use non-transactional queues and make the messages non-recoverable, which keeps them from hitting disk. But with these settings I never had a problem with messages being lost, etc. 2. If SOAP is too heavy weight, then fine, use your own custom messaging format. And personally, I doubt it's SOAP that is causing the problem but rather it's what you're doing once the message is received. 3. SQL Server does not support C# for triggers now, but Yukon will. It will be nice when it does (SQL is not a general purpose language and writing complex SPs is a pain), but you need to provide more info regarding why this is a problem for you. 4. You state that you need to support 100+ users (how many does the + add?), so 200 concurrent database requests should work for you, right? 5. 30-50k leaves you with a lot of powerful iron! Check out Dell and I think you'll have no problems. Of course, Advanced Server for load balancing is not cheap...perhaps another appliance? 6. Uh, generating a lot of dynamic code or using a great deal of reflection is not the way you write high performance applications. It doesn't suprise me that you're finding this to be the case. Wrong tool for the job. 7. You can't compare an HTML page and a web service. They're apples and oranges. And let me tell you, using an ASP as an endpoint to process a post request will in no way out perform a web service. 8. Bullshit. Either your schema is the problem or you're writing bad queries. Sorry. 9. Uh, gee, yes real-time replication is expensive esp. when you have a lot of writes. That's just the way it is. Perhaps you can refactor in some way. I think we need more information on the type of app your developing before we can offer you a solution, but I don't buy into your bulleted list.
Would you please be so kind as to define your terms. Namely, what definition are you using for "power"? If your definition is that you must be able to use pointers, then C++ is more powerful than Java. In my case I might choose to define it as writing a particular application in the fewest lines, and in most of these cases Java or C# are far more "powerful" than C++.