What kind of world do you live in? Do you know anything about software. "Dependencies" - go look it up. "Testing" - go look it up. You anti-MS people are for the most part laughably clueless about pretty much anything other than the Simpsons and how wicked fast you can can compile your wicked new Gentoo system.
Bullshit. It also boasts a much improved development environment, tools, and...these things called "capabilities". It's more like developing a normal Windows application that some bullshit one-off Flash development.
False. 240 "languages" (I saw that link - they're not all languages) that run on the JVM. How many of those are languages natively targeting the JVM and how many are just languages developed in Java. There is a difference, you know.
See, that's what you're a tech dinosaur. You don't understand software development or systems architecture. You have no evidence that the TradElect failure was related to.NET or Windows issues and not to inherent architectural issues with the product itself.
Dumb people think if you use a faster language your overall system will be commensurately faster. Architecture is far more important than a language in a distributed system.
In the end, you're just a dweeby Linux troll and nobody outside, in the real world, gives a shit about your opinions because they're all outdated.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is you're old and irrelevant and I'd respect your wisdom as one of my elders if your "wisdom" wasn't 10 years outdated.
The JVM does run on 10x more operating systems. Finally you've said something true!
Please do a search on ".NET languages" and "Java VM languages". Note that a language _written in Java_ is not the same as a language that sits directly on top of the Java VM or.NET CLR. You'll find you're wrong, and in general being newer the.NET CLR is simply a better platform.
Erasure-based generics are annoying, but the CE-incompatible hacks of runtime generation are worse.
Huh? I'm not even sure what that means. Java erasure generics plain suck. Not clear on what your second phrase means.
Writing getter/setter for trivial properties is annoying, but limited and buggy syntactic sugar is worse.
Huh? How is "public string MyProperty { get; protected set; }" limited or buggy, especially when you can _still_ do your own getter/setter for trivial properties? I'm unclear what the 'disaster' is.
Having all objects be pointers is annoying, but making structs silently stack-allocated is worse.
Having all objects be pointers is not annoying unless you're a grizzled old C++ coder who refuses to change. As for structs.. huh? You don't like call by reference but you also don't like call by copy? Make up your mind. And if you don't like it, don't use structs. I've never created a struct type in C# and I've done a lot of coding (most of it "enterprisey" type coding, though).
Needing to use arrays to fake reference parameters is annoying, but side-effects on partial execution are worse
As a wise Doctor once told me, if you don't want your code to have side effects for partial execution.. "don't do that."
Having to scrunch different languages in to a Java-tailored bytecode is annoying, but the gymnastics required by MSIL are worse.
Right. That's why there are far more languages available for the.NET CLR than there are for the Java VM. Wait, that would be backwards!
For a small program they would be different. For a large system they're night and day. What some people dismissively call "syntactic sugar" are actually extremely efficient means to improve maintainability, reduce lines of code, and improve performance.
It cracks me up. I mean I'm sure until Java implemented it the "foreach" construct was just syntactic sugar, right? Delegates - who wants those! Lambda expressions? Bah. Real men write 5 lines of code instead of one! Events? I can do that myself, again why write 5 lines of code when I can write 30!
C# is the better language - period. That does not mean that.NET is the better platform in all cases - I'm not saying that. But if you look at the language C# is better, as it should be because it's newer and it got to learn from Java's mistakes and shortcomings.
Exactly. C# has tons and tons of very useful features that Java (the language) doesn't. The VM is also more advanced as indicated by the sheer number of languages that have been developed on the CLR.
If you think the main difference is a capital 'M' I suggest you not comment at all because you don't know what you're talking about and it just makes you (grandparent poster) look stupid.
"Java and C# are very, very similar yet many uneducated folks seem to think they are radically different."
First, you're begging the question. Who says many folks think they are radically different? What does their being radically different have to do with anything? They're both syntactically derived from C++. They both run in a bytecode interpreter. What's your point?
I guess it's probably a credit to Microsoft's advertising that lower rung programmers think.NET is some kind of revolutionary technology and not a crippled clone of Java.
Here's where you go off the rails..NET is revolutionary, it has completely changed the way people develop software for Windows. Is it revolutionary in terms of its general concept? No. It is revolutionary in terms of its implementation and the cohesive nature of the languages and libraries built on top of it.
C# is a better language of course than Java, syntactically. Delegates, a runtime generics system and not that hacky compile time shit Java uses, events, etc... So crippled: Demonstrably not.
More languages are available for the CLR than for Java's VM. So crippled: Demonstrably not.
You're a douche. An old dinosaur douche with outdated computing skills shaking your fist at those young kids with their new "internal combustion engine" and "sanitation" and all those new whatsits. Back in your day men were men, and you didn't need those fancy "technologies", you had your horse driven carriages and your shitting hole!
I'm laughing at you because you're irrelevant. I've done a lot of Java and a lot of C#. C# wins very handily in the language syntax department, and handily in the vendor provided framework library department. Java wins in the community support and breadth of third party libraries. I actually think Maven is a huge plus for Java too, though some hate it.
In the end, if you're doing "enterprisey" development.NET is the winner hands down - the messaging support and integration are just leaps and bounds beyond Java.
Uhh, instead of that why wouldn't they just use one step: Not make this community promise in the first place.
You people are seriously paranoid. And not in a "good guy seems crazy paranoid in movie but it turns out he was right" way, more in a bad "nutcase sitting in his basement with a homemade Faraday cage because the government is using mind control on him" way.
You're stupid, that's all. And you've never written a large program in C#. You can write much, much cleaner more maintainable code in C# compared to C++ simply because the language constructs are more powerful. Same with Java. C++ is a dead(*) language and you're a fucking dinosaur if that's all you know.
* By dead, I mean stagnating in use. It's still got its uses obviously, as do C and assembly. But it's largely becoming a specialized language.
Logical fallacy. Confusing a proportion or a percentage with a scalar amount. Several hundred million Euro is a lot of money to anyone. Do you think all those $200 billion come from one monster source? No, it comes from lots of sources, probably few single sources of their money larger than these fines.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of world do you live in? Do you know anything about software. "Dependencies" - go look it up. "Testing" - go look it up. You anti-MS people are for the most part laughably clueless about pretty much anything other than the Simpsons and how wicked fast you can can compile your wicked new Gentoo system.
Whatever, jackass. Your stupidity contributes nothing to any conversation.
Bullshit. It also boasts a much improved development environment, tools, and...these things called "capabilities". It's more like developing a normal Windows application that some bullshit one-off Flash development.
False. 240 "languages" (I saw that link - they're not all languages) that run on the JVM. How many of those are languages natively targeting the JVM and how many are just languages developed in Java. There is a difference, you know.
But...why not just leave it ambiguous? Then they can still go all apeshit ("they really are out to get you") later and have more options to do so.
Now, I know your answer. Why, because they want to suck more people in to their nefarious plot! What was I saying about paranoia, again...?
See, that's what you're a tech dinosaur. You don't understand software development or systems architecture. You have no evidence that the TradElect failure was related to .NET or Windows issues and not to inherent architectural issues with the product itself.
Dumb people think if you use a faster language your overall system will be commensurately faster. Architecture is far more important than a language in a distributed system.
In the end, you're just a dweeby Linux troll and nobody outside, in the real world, gives a shit about your opinions because they're all outdated.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is you're old and irrelevant and I'd respect your wisdom as one of my elders if your "wisdom" wasn't 10 years outdated.
The JVM does run on 10x more operating systems. Finally you've said something true!
Please do a search on ".NET languages" and "Java VM languages". Note that a language _written in Java_ is not the same as a language that sits directly on top of the Java VM or .NET CLR. You'll find you're wrong, and in general being newer the .NET CLR is simply a better platform.
Disaster? Seems a bit extreme.
Erasure-based generics are annoying, but the CE-incompatible hacks of runtime generation are worse.
Huh? I'm not even sure what that means. Java erasure generics plain suck. Not clear on what your second phrase means.
Writing getter/setter for trivial properties is annoying, but limited and buggy syntactic sugar is worse.
Huh? How is "public string MyProperty { get; protected set; }" limited or buggy, especially when you can _still_ do your own getter/setter for trivial properties? I'm unclear what the 'disaster' is.
Having all objects be pointers is annoying, but making structs silently stack-allocated is worse.
Having all objects be pointers is not annoying unless you're a grizzled old C++ coder who refuses to change. As for structs.. huh? You don't like call by reference but you also don't like call by copy? Make up your mind. And if you don't like it, don't use structs. I've never created a struct type in C# and I've done a lot of coding (most of it "enterprisey" type coding, though).
Needing to use arrays to fake reference parameters is annoying, but side-effects on partial execution are worse
As a wise Doctor once told me, if you don't want your code to have side effects for partial execution.. "don't do that."
Having to scrunch different languages in to a Java-tailored bytecode is annoying, but the gymnastics required by MSIL are worse.
Right. That's why there are far more languages available for the .NET CLR than there are for the Java VM. Wait, that would be backwards!
For a small program they would be different.
oops.
For a small program they would NOT be vastly different.
For a small program they would be different. For a large system they're night and day. What some people dismissively call "syntactic sugar" are actually extremely efficient means to improve maintainability, reduce lines of code, and improve performance.
It cracks me up. I mean I'm sure until Java implemented it the "foreach" construct was just syntactic sugar, right? Delegates - who wants those! Lambda expressions? Bah. Real men write 5 lines of code instead of one! Events? I can do that myself, again why write 5 lines of code when I can write 30!
C# is the better language - period. That does not mean that .NET is the better platform in all cases - I'm not saying that. But if you look at the language C# is better, as it should be because it's newer and it got to learn from Java's mistakes and shortcomings.
Exactly. C# has tons and tons of very useful features that Java (the language) doesn't. The VM is also more advanced as indicated by the sheer number of languages that have been developed on the CLR.
If you think the main difference is a capital 'M' I suggest you not comment at all because you don't know what you're talking about and it just makes you (grandparent poster) look stupid.
OK, jackoff. Let's see.
"Java and C# are very, very similar yet many uneducated folks seem to think they are radically different."
First, you're begging the question. Who says many folks think they are radically different? What does their being radically different have to do with anything? They're both syntactically derived from C++. They both run in a bytecode interpreter. What's your point?
I guess it's probably a credit to Microsoft's advertising that lower rung programmers think .NET is some kind of revolutionary technology and not a crippled clone of Java.
Here's where you go off the rails. .NET is revolutionary, it has completely changed the way people develop software for Windows. Is it revolutionary in terms of its general concept? No. It is revolutionary in terms of its implementation and the cohesive nature of the languages and libraries built on top of it.
C# is a better language of course than Java, syntactically. Delegates, a runtime generics system and not that hacky compile time shit Java uses, events, etc... So crippled: Demonstrably not.
More languages are available for the CLR than for Java's VM. So crippled: Demonstrably not.
You're a douche. An old dinosaur douche with outdated computing skills shaking your fist at those young kids with their new "internal combustion engine" and "sanitation" and all those new whatsits. Back in your day men were men, and you didn't need those fancy "technologies", you had your horse driven carriages and your shitting hole!
I'm laughing at you because you're irrelevant. I've done a lot of Java and a lot of C#. C# wins very handily in the language syntax department, and handily in the vendor provided framework library department. Java wins in the community support and breadth of third party libraries. I actually think Maven is a huge plus for Java too, though some hate it.
In the end, if you're doing "enterprisey" development .NET is the winner hands down - the messaging support and integration are just leaps and bounds beyond Java.
Uhh, instead of that why wouldn't they just use one step: Not make this community promise in the first place.
You people are seriously paranoid. And not in a "good guy seems crazy paranoid in movie but it turns out he was right" way, more in a bad "nutcase sitting in his basement with a homemade Faraday cage because the government is using mind control on him" way.
You're stupid, that's all. And you've never written a large program in C#. You can write much, much cleaner more maintainable code in C# compared to C++ simply because the language constructs are more powerful. Same with Java. C++ is a dead(*) language and you're a fucking dinosaur if that's all you know.
* By dead, I mean stagnating in use. It's still got its uses obviously, as do C and assembly. But it's largely becoming a specialized language.
And you...disagree that this is a "win" for Microsoft if this happens? I'm confused as to your point.
They should come up with a new term for this. How about "ManUrgicide". Homicide without intent or direct involvement.
Seriously. Give me a fucking break. This isn't manslaughter and it was impossible for "perp" to know "victim" would do anything.
Begging the question. Linux is not on 80% of the servers out there.
'wheel' group? What is this, 1987? Who still uses the wheel group?
Right. Prison is a cakewalk for an old man. Give me a break. He's going to have a shitty remaining 1-20 years of life.
What do you think "justice" is, dipshit? You can call it what you want, but prison is about punishment and about prevention.
Logical fallacy. Confusing a proportion or a percentage with a scalar amount. Several hundred million Euro is a lot of money to anyone. Do you think all those $200 billion come from one monster source? No, it comes from lots of sources, probably few single sources of their money larger than these fines.
And you, geeky dweeb #17, are representative of EU consumer needs? Right...
Maybe someone should explain it to you. Did you put more than 4 gigs of memory in his computer? Otherwise it "gets the juice" just fine.
You seem to be missing the elliptical phrase implied at the end, that's all.
I could care less[...but I don't know how.]