Linked by David Adams on Wed 30th Jun 2010 16:25 UTC, submitted by tecepeipe
Java We don't cover the development platform wars as much as we should. But wherever you fall in the epic battle between .NET, Java, and LAMP, you'll probably enjoy the video after the jump.
Order by: Score:
Shakes Head
by xiaokj on Wed 30th Jun 2010 16:40 UTC
xiaokj
Member since:
2005-06-30

My eyes! They are bleeding!

<like article>

Reply Score: 1

fantastic!
by poundsmack on Wed 30th Jun 2010 16:43 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

love it! makes we want to start coding in java again, in hopes that beautiful woman randomly appear and reaffirm my programming language convictions. ...or just appear. you know, which ever.

Reply Score: 15

RE: fantastic!
by Karitku on Wed 30th Jun 2010 19:38 UTC in reply to "fantastic!"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Stop daydreaming, or you find yourself middle of horror slasher movie you as victim trying to work with Oracle Forms. Java browser plugin + Oracle Forms, horror...horror

Reply Score: 3

RE: fantastic!
by Tuishimi on Wed 30th Jun 2010 22:13 UTC in reply to "fantastic!"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

This really made me smile. ;) Thanks!

Reply Score: 3

That's funny!
by melonhead on Wed 30th Jun 2010 16:45 UTC
melonhead
Member since:
2010-06-30

I actually prefer C# and the .NET framework but I have to admit - that's the funniest video I've seen in a very long time and it's making me look at JAVA again.

Reply Score: 3

RE: That's funny!
by David on Wed 30th Jun 2010 16:48 UTC in reply to "That's funny!"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

It's true. If all of Microsoft's product lines were as formidable as .NET, they would be a force to be reckoned with.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: That's funny!
by fretinator on Wed 30th Jun 2010 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE: That's funny!"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

As a died-in-the-wool Linux user (as well as BSD, and yes, Windows for gaming!), I have no problem with Microsoft's products. Their developer tools have always been world-class. VB[4-6] was a tremendous IDE/Language for a lot of people, even if oft abused. Visual C++, Microsoft Access, MS Sql Server, all are great products.

The problem I have always had has to do with business practices, especially in the earlier days. They essentially strong-armed their way to a monopoly position.

Having said that, today Apple makes Microsoft look like a total whimp when it comes to strong-arming. Heck, Apple's favorite hobby is suing their own most ardent followers!

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: That's funny!
by Laurence on Thu 1st Jul 2010 08:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's funny!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Microsoft Access, [snip] are great products.


Access is dreadful.

It's too complicated for the database n00bie and lacks in every possible way for anyone who isn't a database n00bie.
although, this is mostly down to epic shortcomings of Jet.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: That's funny!
by Sparrowhawk on Thu 1st Jul 2010 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's funny!"
Sparrowhawk Member since:
2005-07-11

I have to completely disagree.

Aside from the horror that is the RIbbon in 2007/2010, Access is a great tool for building apps and manipulating data, in those cases where a more scalable solution is not required.

Of course it is not easy for beginners. MS wants it to be, hence the abomination of the Ribbon and the new navigation pane, but what programmable, relational database is easy for beginners?

As to whether it sucks for app development: a couple of years back I wrote an all-Access (front end and backend) system in A2003 to handle the *global* anti-money laundering exercise at one of the world's largest banks. Why in Access? Because their IT refused to let us have access (no pun intended) to either a SQL Server or Oracle backend, and we were not allowed to install any software that was not already on the desktops (actually, they had Access 2000, but I did manage to persuade them to go to 2003)

So, that left Excel and Access. With the best will in the world, I didn't fancy writing a 15-user Excel system with full audit trail and record sharing! ;)

And so Access. Like any other tool, if you know it well, it's amazing what you can get it to do. 15 users logged in concurrently handling over 200,000* records in real time, 80+ tables, several hundred queries, I think about 50 forms (all designed as a Web page with nav bar, main content as subforms etc so that the users felt at home straight away), I forget how many code modules and classes. Several thousand lines of code, certainly. Mostly around workflow, validation and regulatory requirements.

In 18 months, we had 2 record corruption issues. Just 2. And that was using Jet as the engine.

The other benefit was that were able to start coding on day 1, using a RAD approach. We had people entering data within a week (just 2 at first), and the system took about 3-4 months to build in all (elapsed time was for longer), as more and more functionality got added.

Full audit trail, automatic updates of client front-end databases using another Access app, it had it all ;)

Would I use Access for all my database needs? No way. I use MySQL 5 mainly, SQL Server occasionally. I do use Access (and Excel, and OpenOffice Calc) a lot to manipulate data though. Whatever suits best.

To each their own I guess, which is the pleasure of the choice we all have.

Edit: * that's 200,000 anti-money laundering cases, not database records. The cases were of course split over numerous tables.

Edited 2010-07-01 16:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: That's funny!
by Laurence on Thu 1st Jul 2010 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: That's funny!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

But you pretty much summed it up when you stated that you *HAD* to use Access rather than *CHOSE* to.

Sure, you can do that kind of stuff in Access (I myself have done simular stuff when forced to). However just because something can be done, it doesn't mean that it's particularly good at doing it.

So I stand by my point that Access is a dreadful application that seems to fill the sole demographic of "we have to use it as it's the only soddin' thing installed"

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: That's funny!
by vivainio on Thu 1st Jul 2010 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: That's funny!"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


So I stand by my point that Access is a dreadful application that seems to fill the sole demographic of "we have to use it as it's the only soddin' thing installed"

Is there a good open alternative for Access?

I know there is at least "Kexi" and "Glom", but I'm not sure how widely they are used.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: That's funny!
by Sparrowhawk on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: That's funny!"
Sparrowhawk Member since:
2005-07-11

I disagree again. I do chose to use Access an awful lot for all kinds of other needs (lots of data migration/cleansing work for example). I was just demonstrating an extreme example of what it's quite capable of doing when required.

I'm clearly not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine, but that's fine. There's plenty of choice out there for all of us.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: That's funny!
by StaubSaugerNZ on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: That's funny!"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

I disagree again. I do chose to use Access an awful lot for all kinds of other needs (lots of data migration/cleansing work for example). I was just demonstrating an extreme example of what it's quite capable of doing when required.

I'm clearly not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine, but that's fine. There's plenty of choice out there for all of us.


If you are using Access your data volumes are negligible. I'm glad Access works for you and your problems. Please do not extrapolate Access as a solution for *big* problems - it is a grave mistake.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That's funny!
by spiderman on Thu 1st Jul 2010 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's funny!"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

MS Sql Server, all are great products.

I'm using it everyday. It is a great product unless you have tried other databases, then you realize how much it sucks. I mostly use Oracle and migrate everything I can migrate from SQL Server. Compared to Oracle, SQL server is rigid, slow, clunky, unmanageable and unusable. Even Mysql is better than SQL server. I think it is only used in legacy ASP web applications that nobody want to touch.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That's funny!
by KermitTheFragger on Wed 30th Jun 2010 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE: That's funny!"
KermitTheFragger Member since:
2008-06-12

If all of Microsoft's product lines were as formidable as .NET, they would be a force to be reckoned with.


Too bad that if you choose for .NET you basically also choose for all the less formidable product lines.

Reply Score: 3

Nice and ringing to my heart
by dvhh on Wed 30th Jun 2010 17:41 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

.net is still nice but most .net dev forget about platform portability (Mono or even older .net version).
And I admit that year after java ms is bound to avoid sun's pitfalls.
However they still keep their own domain strong, .net on the desktop, java on the server (java still got bad press about heavyweight gui, and .net still lack of a tomcat equivalent in the server world).
I have a deep interest with scala, the language that could renew the java platform in a proper motion.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice and ringing to my heart
by Hiev on Wed 30th Jun 2010 17:48 UTC in reply to "Nice and ringing to my heart"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

True, but for someone who has 100% of their customers on MS platforms, .NET is gift that and Java can't compare.

Edited 2010-06-30 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

True, but for someone who has 100% of their customers on MS platforms, .NET is gift that and Java can't compare.


And especially someone that plans to always have 100% of their customers on MS platforms.

Sharecropping can be profitable:

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace

Reply Score: 3

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

If only sun wasn't that much of an ass with java (I don't expect any more from oracle), yeah I know about the openjdk and gjc but apache was trying to build a proper jre and got the finger by sun regarding licencing issue about jre validation tool.
problem is that even with java code, most of the dev target the sun/oracle jre, and often write code that refers to com.sun.* package "because a friend told him to".
plus I would say that as mature as the java platform is, its future is clouded by the oracle acquisition.

Reply Score: 2

KermitTheFragger Member since:
2008-06-12


problem is that even with java code, most of the dev target the sun/oracle jre, and often write code that refers to com.sun.* package "because a friend told him to".


You must hang out with wrong friends then ;-) I can count the number of times I ran into com.sun usage on one hand. Every single time it was that stupid Base64 encoder/decoder. It's easily swapped out for another one.

Reply Score: 2

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I have that fear as well... the Oracle factor. They have a way of ruining things...

OpenJDK is actually quite nice! I was pleasantly surprised that on Mint it was able to run our applications via JBOSS without any hiccups.

Reply Score: 3

ramasubbu_sk Member since:
2007-04-05

yeah, its true!

Reply Score: 1

KermitTheFragger Member since:
2008-06-12

for someone who has 100% of their customers on MS platforms, .NET is gift that and Java can't compare.


No argument there. The reason for that is obvious; The first .NET framework release was basically a fork of Java, geared towards usage on Windows. Starting from 2.0 Microsoft got more original.

The question remains is that something you want ? To get so dependant on a single vendor.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

If only developers who thought Java was super great had to support the back-end servers that run their enterprise applications.

One of our vendors is replacing their Java application with an ASP.net rewrite. I have seen the product and I have to tell you...the application server under load does not even have half the memory footprint and keeps CPU utilization under 30%

I don't care what Java app server you use, it will be chunky and slow.

Reply Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

One of our vendors is replacing their Java application with an ASP.net rewrite. I have seen the product and I have to tell you...the application server under load does not even have half the memory footprint and keeps CPU utilization under 30%

The reasoning above has an error, similar to "I have installed Vista on a NEW computer, and it flies. Vista is sure faster than Windows XP".

But, what would happen if you installed WinXP on this new fast computer? It would be much faster than Vista.

The point is, when you rewrite code, it will always be faster than the old code (unless you are incompetent). A full rewrite in Java would also be faster.


I don't care what Java app server you use, it will be chunky and slow.

Sure. But NASDAQ's newest stock exchange system is developed in Java, and it is one of the world's fastest exchange system. So it is possible to write large Enterprise server systems in Java. But it seems you had some problems.

Edited 2010-07-03 09:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nice One!!
by ramasubbu_sk on Wed 30th Jun 2010 17:44 UTC
ramasubbu_sk
Member since:
2007-04-05

Nice one!!

Reply Score: 1

Even more funny..
by Boldie on Wed 30th Jun 2010 18:14 UTC
Boldie
Member since:
2007-03-26

...if you are a Swede understanding Norwegian. Just sounds so funny! :-)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Even more funny..
by J-Ho on Wed 30th Jun 2010 18:56 UTC in reply to "Even more funny.."
J-Ho Member since:
2007-01-19

I second that!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Even more funny..
by dylansmrjones on Wed 30th Jun 2010 19:57 UTC in reply to "Even more funny.."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Agreed.

Well, a Dane understanding Norwegian. It is so much better when you ignore the subtitles ;)

Reply Score: 2

One shortfall only
by Shkaba on Wed 30th Jun 2010 19:31 UTC
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

Loved the video! I only wish for the sake of the storyline they'd use a dell laptop instead of a Mac. Jave as a platform has its advantages over NET, but also disadvantages.

Reply Score: 2

RE: One shortfall only
by vivainio on Wed 30th Jun 2010 19:33 UTC in reply to "One shortfall only"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Loved the video! I only wish for the sake of the storyline they'd use a dell laptop instead of a Mac.


Dunno, there were 2 guys sitting on a bed. Mac seems to fit the storyline.

Reply Score: 17

So funny
by vodoomoth on Wed 30th Jun 2010 19:44 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

God, my ribs hurt!

Reply Score: 2

OMFG!
by wargum on Thu 1st Jul 2010 19:07 UTC in reply to "So funny"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

I agree, this was insanely funny! :-D

Comedy gold, son!

Maybe I liked it that much because I am on "the good side", too! Java, I love you!

Edited 2010-07-01 19:08 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ostlund
by ostlund on Wed 30th Jun 2010 20:02 UTC
ostlund
Member since:
2010-06-30

Very funny!

Reply Score: 1

Say...
by Terg on Wed 30th Jun 2010 20:07 UTC
Terg
Member since:
2010-02-24

Isn't Java supposed to be older than .NET?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Say...
by Lennie on Wed 30th Jun 2010 22:24 UTC in reply to "Say..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I guess they mean, Java is past, present and future.

Not that I agree, .Net or Java are not my languages of choice. .Net is platform specific and in my experience people programming Java usually come up with very complicated solutions to simple problems. That seems to be the culture, or best practice.

Edited 2010-06-30 22:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Say...
by wargum on Thu 1st Jul 2010 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Say..."
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

in my experience people programming Java usually come up with very complicated solutions to simple problems. That seems to be the culture, or best practice.

All I can say to you is this: Once you've reached a certain level of software engineering skills, you can't write quick and dirty code anymore. Your brain refuses to let you do this. You absolutely HAVE to write clean and highly abstract and reusable code, there is no way back!

Java definitely supports clean solutions and proposes best practices by default over time, because the API itself is very consistent.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Say...
by Robert_Zenz on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Say..."
Robert_Zenz Member since:
2010-06-10

Once you've reached a certain level of software engineering skills, you can't write quick and dirty code anymore. Your brain refuses to let you do this.


I second that! I just don't code anymore like I did 2 years ago...and if I look at my 'solutions' from back then...it just gives me the creeps.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Say...
by Slambert666 on Thu 1st Jul 2010 03:11 UTC in reply to "Say..."
RE[2]: Say...
by dvzt on Thu 1st Jul 2010 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Say..."
dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

Yes, in this case the Java advocates had to both change history and lie in order to make Java look good


According to Wikipedia, it's .net in 2002 vs. Java in 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)

Reply Score: 2

Shhhhhhhh
by nt_jerkface on Thu 1st Jul 2010 04:37 UTC in reply to "Say..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Java is the young underdog to the established .net. Didn't you watch the video?

They should claim in the video that .net was the successor to Cobol and that Java was created in a garage by a pair of genius twins who open source their software and make money by selling coffee flavored ice cream. Sure that may not be 100% true but think about how much traffic a story with that kind of background could create.

Reply Score: 1

Scala Johansson
by shis-ka-bob on Sun 4th Jul 2010 00:59 UTC in reply to "Shhhhhhhh"
shis-ka-bob Member since:
2007-02-05

Scala is the namesake of the next generation of Java development in the video. Java is as much a platform as .Net. Java has the JVM, .Net has the CLI. Both platforms have many languages. Note how the video never mentioned Sun, but they did mention open source and Scala. Open source has contributed a great deal to 'new Java'. Go look at Grails, Hibernate and Spring. Look how the open source Joda Time is replacing the abomination of Java's original time classes. (And .Net programmers, don't get smug, Node Time is a port of Joda Time to .Net. Microsoft's handling of time is also pretty bad. It drives me crazy when Microsoft SQL Server calculates that '2010-07-01' - '2010-07-02' = '1899-12-31'. Go look at what Postgres does with time for goodness sake.)

Scala is a brilliant language. It has great support for functional programming, and it also has support for richer OO than I have seen in Java or C#. It runs on both the JVM and the CLI, but I only see it being used on the JVM. Scala's use of actors for concurrency is so much better than writing locks and threads for concurrency. Sun and Microsoft both missed this model, but the open source and academic communities did not.

Look at Clojure. It is being used to pioneer some amazing advances in how programs deal with state. There is a great deal of interesting work being done in Java that has nothing to do with Sun. Can you say that about .Net, who other than Microsoft is evolving the platform?

Reply Score: 1

Classic gag
by Neolander on Wed 30th Jun 2010 20:11 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

"-Hey, what are you guys up to ?
-We're just enjoying some porn
-<unsurprised> Hope you're not doing Java and open-source..."

This gag has been overused, but it remains incredibly funny for its age XD

Reply Score: 5

The world...
by turrini on Wed 30th Jun 2010 20:25 UTC
turrini
Member since:
2006-10-31

... speaks C/C++

And I speak C/C++, and when multiplataform, I use C++ with Qt.

Reply Score: 4

Link to video
by ddc_ on Wed 30th Jun 2010 20:59 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

I don't have flash plugin installed. Can anyone please post a link to youtube video page for this?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Link to video
by vivainio on Wed 30th Jun 2010 21:03 UTC in reply to "Link to video"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I don't have flash plugin installed. Can anyone please post a link to youtube video page for this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

EDIT: sorry, better version at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzza-ZbEY70

Edited 2010-06-30 21:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Link to video
by muszek on Wed 30th Jun 2010 21:53 UTC in reply to "Link to video"
muszek Member since:
2007-04-25
Comment by xmv_
by xmv_ on Wed 30th Jun 2010 21:10 UTC
xmv_
Member since:
2006-06-09

I kind of expected dad to be angry cause he had a mac.. but nope.

Reply Score: 3

So now I have to wonder
by bryanv on Thu 1st Jul 2010 01:21 UTC
bryanv
Member since:
2005-08-26

if I could get my wife to hold my laptop like that.

Reply Score: 5

nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Sun blew their early advantage by not making use of native controls and ignoring distribution related issues that developers were constantly complaining about. The arrogance at Sun was always more of a problem than MS or .Net. There were countless posts in Java related forums about the same issues and Sun just ignored them.

Java is completely dead on the desktop and overrated on the server. JavaFX is buggy and requires the Java runtime.

The future is in .Net and Qt.

Reply Score: 1

oinet Member since:
2010-03-23

My desktop: .NET 0 - Java 1 (JDownloader)

Reply Score: 1

ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

The future is in .Net ...

.NET is bloated and requires a runtime! So what's your point. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


.NET is bloated and requires a runtime! So what's your point. ;-)


Is it the bloat that makes paint.net load and respond faster than the gimp?

As for the .net framework it comes installed on new Windows computers. You can also include the framework in your install executable.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Is it the bloat that makes paint.net load and respond faster than the gimp?

No, it is...
1/The fact that paint.net has much lower goals than gimp, targeting casual users, and hence does not need to introduce the same level of functionality.
2/The fact that the .net runtime comes preloaded by Windows at startup time in order to make the technology look better than it actually is. It's not the case with GTK or GEGL.

Try to make a serious physics simulation in C and C# using no microsoft-provided library (just raw computation and file access) and compare performance. Then you'll see what .net is really up to. Just like any other member of the bloated HLL family.

Edited 2010-07-01 16:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

khaledh Member since:
2007-03-30

Try to make a serious physics simulation in C and C# using no microsoft-provided library (just raw computation and file access) and compare performance. Then you'll see what .net is really up to. Just like any other member of the bloated HLL family.


I have to differ. I actually did a lot of computational intensive algorithms in C# during my PhD, and for the sake of comparing performance implemented some of the same algorithms in C++. Performance was almost the same. The last one I did was an algorithm for the Netflix recommendation system contest; it involved heavy vector math calculations. Both the C# and the C++ versions of the algorithm had almost the exact same performance.

The .NET JIT compiler does a terrific job optimizing CLR code into native code, you only incur a small hit the first time the code is JIT compiled; afterwards it's on par with C/C++ and sometimes even better (due to optimizations that can be only detected at runtime).

Reply Score: 1

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Interesting. Did you do large scale computations in C#, or was it small data? What was your PhD about? CFD?

I mean, lots of times it works great for small data, or a few CPUs and then you can hastily draw the conclusion it also works well for large scale - but it doesnt. Large scale is a totally different thing. In general, what works in the small, does not work in the large.

This shows very clear in theoretical comp sci, where the naive algorithms behave terribly for large data sets or for many cpus. Then you have do redo everything and some algorithms become very very nasty and sophisticated. One professor said "the algorithm to do that is very nasty. You could mug someone with it"

Reply Score: 2

khaledh Member since:
2007-03-30

My PhD was about document clustering, it involved a lot of text mining techniques, heavily dependent on vector math, in addition to a lot of text pre-processing. I worked on data sets with hundreds of thousands of documents.

The Netflix prize data set wasn't small either. Here's a blurb from the Wikipedia entry: "Netflix provided a training data set of 100,480,507 ratings that 480,189 users gave to 17,770 movies." I wouldn't call this a small data set by any stretch. It's not huge, but it's not small either.

When you talk about algorithms that work well on small data sets but not on large ones you're actually talking about the algorithm computational complexity (Big-O). The language or runtime in which the algorithm is implemented usually doesn't matter if it has bad asymptotic bound; it's going to perform poorly no matter what language it's implemented in.

Reply Score: 1

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

My PhD was about document clustering, it involved a lot of text mining techniques, heavily dependent on vector math, in addition to a lot of text pre-processing. I worked on data sets with hundreds of thousands of documents.

The Netflix prize data set wasn't small either. Here's a blurb from the Wikipedia entry: "Netflix provided a training data set of 100,480,507 ratings that 480,189 users gave to 17,770 movies." I wouldn't call this a small data set by any stretch. It's not huge, but it's not small either.

Ok, it looks like a relevant size on your data set. It seems that C# does suffice on this type of problem.

Anyone tried C# on data type double? In CFD and numerical analysis?


When you talk about algorithms that work well on small data sets but not on large ones you're actually talking about the algorithm computational complexity (Big-O). The language or runtime in which the algorithm is implemented usually doesn't matter if it has bad asymptotic bound; it's going to perform poorly no matter what language it's implemented in.

Yes, I know. One of my Master degrees is in Algorithm theory.

Reply Score: 2

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

My PhD was about document clustering, it involved a lot of text mining techniques, heavily dependent on vector math, in addition to a lot of text pre-processing. I worked on data sets with hundreds of thousands of documents.

The Netflix prize data set wasn't small either. Here's a blurb from the Wikipedia entry: "Netflix provided a training data set of 100,480,507 ratings that 480,189 users gave to 17,770 movies." I wouldn't call this a small data set by any stretch. It's not huge, but it's not small either.

When you talk about algorithms that work well on small data sets but not on large ones you're actually talking about the algorithm computational complexity (Big-O). The language or runtime in which the algorithm is implemented usually doesn't matter if it has bad asymptotic bound; it's going to perform poorly no matter what language it's implemented in.


Congratulations on your PhD. My PhD thesis was on gravitational microlensing. At that time our project produced one half million new data points (after image processing) every five minutes of observation. The project is still operational and produces an order of magnitude more data than that every five minutes. For this Linux is needed.

.NET was simply not a contender at these data volumes as a bunch of portable technologies are used, mostly C++, Python, Perl, Java. C# is too new, too expensive to license on the scale we need (all our tools are open-source since the project prefers to spend money on instrumentation and the .NET tools are not superior enough (actually, not at all) to warrant the expense).

For small projects like your own thesis I'm sure .NET on Windows is ok and the cost might even be justified. I prefer to use technology that will work not only at that level (also on Windows) but also scales when the number of data points is in the billions and approaching the trillions.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


1/The fact that paint.net has much lower goals than gimp, targeting casual users, and hence does not need to introduce the same level of functionality.


Oh that is your excuse? Why is Photoshop faster than The Gimp when it offers more functionality?


2/The fact that the .net runtime comes preloaded by Windows at startup time in order to make the technology look better than it actually is. It's not the case with GTK or GEGL.


A GTK+ app in Windows actually has less overhead. There are plenty of fast GTK+ apps Windows, see AbiWord for an example. You can write fast Windows apps in GTK+, Qt and .net.


Try to make a serious physics simulation in C and C# using no microsoft-provided library (just raw computation and file access) and compare performance.


Well .net isn't designed for raw computation but it is rare for a program to actually require c++ to achieve acceptable performance. Physics simulations are written in c# all the time, you'd have to do some very heavy processing to even notice a difference.

2D fluid simulation in C#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bL80G1HX9w

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Is it the bloat that makes paint.net load and respond faster than the gimp?


Don't know about the 'respond faster', can you specify what you mean or even better provide some benchmarks? As for loading faster, Paint.net is alot lighter than Gimp.

Also, and perhaps most importantly paint.net is not really a good example of C# .net performance since the heavy computational stuff is being done by the native code gdi+ library and not C# managed code.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Oh that is your excuse? Why is Photoshop faster than The Gimp when it offers more functionality?

Errr... What ?

Someday, a friend lent me a copy of CS3, and I tried to run it. Performance was horrible. When playing with 150px brushes, the lag between the pen tablet and what happened on screen was permanent, increasing with time, and extremely painful. And that's with photoshop's ugly insanely large automatic spacing. With 200px brushes and proper spacing, on the same machine, GIMP somehow managed to be perfectly responsive except for a few glitches here and there.
I could also tell you about the horrible 1min30 loading times that reminded me of Vista on my grandmother's computer...

Maybe things have improved on CS4, but then the reason is simple and has nothing to do with the intrinsic qualities of the code : you're comparing raw CPU power (GIMP) vs CPU+GPU power (CS4).

If you want to advocate photoshop, you'd better mention things like nondestructive editing, HDR support, better RAW and 16bit/color handling, or all the silly 3D thingy. Performance is really not Photoshop's cup op tea.

If you want an example of how performance can go horribly wrong in free software, you should rather try Inkscape.

A GTK+ app in Windows actually has less overhead. There are plenty of fast GTK+ apps Windows, see AbiWord for an example. You can write fast Windows apps in GTK+, Qt and .net.

Yes, you can. But something of the complexity of GIMP ? I mean, Abiword is essentially Notepad with the minimal amount of xml handling it takes to play with doc files. What's strange is not abiword's performance, it's actually that OpenOffice and Word, which do the same thing (rendering and editing formatted text), manage to be such resource hogs.

Edited 2010-07-02 05:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

http://www.itu.dk/~sestoft/papers/numericperformance.pdf

Raw performance comparison of C, Java, and C#. Short, and with numbers.

Edited 2010-07-03 01:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Apparently you have never used Java or administered a Java application in the enterprise... Java is so horrably bloated it isn't even funny.

Reply Score: 2

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Apparently you have never used Java or administered a Java application in the enterprise... Java is so horrably bloated it isn't even funny.


I have developed enterprise Java solutions for Government ministries and banks. These organisations have all sorts of hardware. Their bigger equipment is not usually Windows based so it is surprising to hear you have a .NET solution that you think is better than Java. Are you sure the application is at the *large* end of the enterprise scale or is it small enough that pretty much most technologies would work and you just prefer ASP.net since it is as comfortably same as your desktop?

Which organization pretty much has the most number of machines working together to solve problems? Clearly it is Google. It is worth checking out what technologies they decided to use. If you use the same technologies as them, for internet-scale problems, then you can't go too wrong (unless you really don't know what you are doing, but then you can play the "Wasted a lot of money but I can Blame the Vendor game" instead of actually getting things done).

Reply Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"Apparently you have never used Java or administered a Java application in the enterprise... Java is so horrably bloated it isn't even funny.

I have developed enterprise Java solutions for Government ministries and banks. These organisations have all sorts of hardware. Their bigger equipment is not usually Windows based so it is surprising to hear you have a .NET solution that you think is better than Java. Are you sure the application is at the *large* end of the enterprise scale or is it small enough that pretty much most technologies would work and you just prefer ASP.net since it is as comfortably same as your desktop?
"
Hear what he says. This is the common mistake people do. They see it works great on small data sets or low demands (99% uptime) and think it would scale up. But it doesnt. For instance, it is a whole different matter to go from 99% to 99,999% uptime. Much much much more difficult and requires a total re architecture with off site replication, etc. So usually, big systems are not on Windows. That for a reason.

It is like loading 50,000 kg on a truck and think cars are fine for whatever work load. But loading 500,000 kg does not work, then you need a ship or something else than a car. A ship is a whole different matter than a car, and you face totally new difficulties.

Reply Score: 2

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"[q] ...snip ...

Hear what he says. This is the common mistake people do. They see it works great on small data sets or low demands (99% uptime) and think it would scale up. But it doesnt. For instance, it is a whole different matter to go from 99% to 99,999% uptime. Much much much more difficult and requires a total re architecture with off site replication, etc. So usually, big systems are not on Windows. That for a reason.

It is like loading 50,000 kg on a truck and think cars are fine for whatever work load. But loading 500,000 kg does not work, then you need a ship or something else than a car. A ship is a whole different matter than a car, and you face totally new difficulties.
"

Yes. Thanks for the analogy, although it is worth remembering Java is fine both for the small load (in your mobile phone or an embedded device [where I have also used it]) all the way to the large load.

Reply Score: 2

Java or .Net?
by spiderman on Thu 1st Jul 2010 05:45 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

3rd stupiest question. Other stupid questions (in order of descending stupidity):

1. vi or emacs?
2. Spiderman or Wolverine?
3. Java or .Net?
4. Your dad or my dad?
5. Republican or Democrat?

And here are the solutions:

1. ed, of course
2. Sorry to burst your bubble but you look more like Bart Simpson.
3. What? Are you still compiling? Compiling is so 90's. Python, FTW.
4. Your dad, hands down.
5. Given that choice, the only option left is expatriation.

Edited 2010-07-01 06:01 UTC

Reply Score: 7

What the hell?
by Timmmm on Thu 1st Jul 2010 10:47 UTC
Timmmm
Member since:
2006-07-25

Who made this, and why?

Reply Score: 1

RE: What the hell?
by morfj on Thu 1st Jul 2010 11:04 UTC in reply to "What the hell?"
morfj Member since:
2010-07-01

Its an ad. http://jz10.java.no/

Reply Score: 1

Question of a different kind :-)
by -pekr- on Thu 1st Jul 2010 11:55 UTC
-pekr-
Member since:
2006-03-28

That video is absolutly fantastic. I just wonder, what's the music score behind it? I surely recognised in one moment, there's Requiem for a dream, at the very beginning, is that American Beauty?

But - what's the score, when the guy unfolds his dedication to JAVA during the dinner? :-) That one makes me aeger to see the movie once again, whatever the movie is :-)

Thanks,
Petr

Reply Score: 1

.NET not for servers
by Kebabbert on Thu 1st Jul 2010 13:39 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

.NET is only found on clients, not on big servers. On big Enterprise servers you find Java/C/C++. But never C#. Java has a strong heritage of server oriented language. C# is for Windows - i.e. the desktop.

The problem is that there are no good .NET implementations on large Enterprise OSes such as Unix or OpenVMS. All large server systems run on Enterprise OSes. They never run Windows. That is the reason you never find .NET on large Enterprise server systems - because you are forced to use Unix/OpenVMS.

So, Java is for large server systems (together with C/C++). And C# is for desktop clients and small server systems that Windows can handle.

But of course, if MS would release .NET for Enterprise Server OSes, then we would see .NET as a foundation for large Enterprise server systems too. But until then, C# is not an option. You do want some stability and high performance for large datasets, and Windows can not offer that.

Reply Score: 3

RE: .NET not for servers
by nt_jerkface on Thu 1st Jul 2010 16:16 UTC in reply to ".NET not for servers"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


But of course, if MS would release .NET for Enterprise Server OSes, then we would see .NET as a foundation for large Enterprise server systems too. But until then, C# is not an option. You do want some stability and high performance for large datasets, and Windows can not offer that.


Here we go again with more BS from 1999.

Windows Server can handle large datasets and is plenty stable. It can handle 256 cores and 2 TB of memory. Try reading about Windows Server HPC some time.

Like Sun you have a quasi-religious faith in Unix and refuse to acknowledge how far the competition as advanced. Your dismissive attitude will undermine you just as it did with Sun.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: .NET not for servers
by Kebabbert on Thu 1st Jul 2010 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE: .NET not for servers"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Windows Server can handle large datasets and is plenty stable. It can handle 256 cores and 2 TB of memory. Try reading about Windows Server HPC some time.

Here we go again. We had this discussion before. You showed me some weird links about a website using 6,000 Windows servers, and meant that was testament that Windows is suitable for large Enterprise systems? I told you then, as I tell you now: that is horizontal scaling. To add a node to a web site is easy. It proves nothing about difficult work loads as a stock exchange. I also said that London Stock Exchange crashed several times and is now abandoning Windows.

Another thing that you dont understand. Just because an OS can handle 256 cores and 2TB RAM does not mean it handles it well. It proves nothing. To scale well is very difficult. IBM AIX which is an old Enterprise Unix with good reputation does not scale well even today. And AIX has run on many cores and more RAM than Windows ever has done.


...you have a quasi-religious faith in Unix and refuse to acknowledge how far the competition as advanced. Your dismissive attitude will undermine you just as it did with Sun.

You know, it is not about my faith. It is about evidence and fact. No one uses Windows for stock exchanges any longer. That is not what I believe, it is a fact. The fact is also that Windows have a very bad reputation of being unstable. If you have missed that, you have lived in a cave the last 20 years.

Again, it is not what I believe. It is about facts and evidence. Maybe you should check up your claims before you post? You said weird things, such as ZFS came to Solaris first. And I told you that ZFS came first to OpenSolaris, and still you persisted. I even showed you wikipedia that says ZFS came first to OpenSolaris, not Solaris. And still you dont believe me. Please, check up your facts. You dont have to believe me, but check up your claims elsewhere. Then you will see that you are wrong and we dont have to have these meaning less posts where I disprove all your claims.

Jesus. Basically, this post is essentially what I wrote earlier. Didnt you read it? Let me say it again: Windows is crap in Enterprise halls. It does not cut it. Windows is fine for small simple or vertical loads. Go and get some more experience of large Enterprise systems, instead of sitting in front of your 1337 haxxorz PC running quad core cpu and Windows only crashes once in every month - that has nothing to do with Enterprise. Nothing. What you know, is not relevant in Enterprise. Please, go and get some work experience, so we dont have to read your ignorant posts. Look at the Enterprise world, there is no Windows! Jesus.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: .NET not for servers
by nt_jerkface on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: .NET not for servers"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Here we go again. We had this discussion before. You showed me some weird links about a website using 6,000 Windows servers, and meant that was testament that Windows is suitable for large Enterprise systems? I told you then, as I tell you now: that is horizontal scaling. To add a node to a web site is easy. It proves nothing about difficult work loads as a stock exchange. I also said that London Stock Exchange crashed several times and is now abandoning Windows.


All stock exchanges run on multiple servers.

As for the LSE you already admitted that the problem could have been the custom software stack. There is no Windows Server 2008 Stock Exchange profile.

Most fortune 500 companies run Windows Server and yet you call it crap in the enterprise. That makes a lot of sense.

It's used in a supercomputer:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/111808-windows-hpc-supercompu...

It's used in one of the busiest websites:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/03/26/myspace_adopts_windows...

It's used in cluster research:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStu...

But according to you it isn't ready for enterprise. How deluded can you possibly be? Yes I know it bothers you and other Unixheads that businesses are buying Windows Server in areas where they used to purchase Unix but it is something that you'll have to get used to. MS has plenty of cash on hand to invest in their software to make it competitive. Instead of making silly claims about Windows Server how about focusing legitimate benefits of Unix. It isn't 1999 anymore, Windows Server 03/08 are massively improved over 2000 and NT 4 and just about every IT publication has acknowledged this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: .NET not for servers
by Kebabbert on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: .NET not for servers"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

As for the LSE you already admitted that the problem could have been the custom software stack.

I did? When? Please copy & paste here.




I told you that the LSE, after spending 61 million USD on development of the Windows stock system, throwed out the garbage Windows after only two years (of constant problems). And the LSE executive that chose Windows got fired. And the new executive bought MilleniumIT which builds stock systems, deployed on Linux and Solaris, for another 30 million USD.

Why would anyone throw out a 61 million dollar system and incur a cost of another 30 million dollar, if the system worked well? And you call me deluded?


Most fortune 500 companies run Windows Server and yet you call it crap in the enterprise. That makes a lot of sense.

Jesus. You know, I bet all 500 companies also use pocket calculators. Do you really draw the conclusion that calculators are suitable for heavy Enterprise use? Not all companies has a big Enterprise server system doing important things. Many, if not all, large Enterprise companies use computers for word processing - but that is not Enterprise! Jesus. The critical stuff on large servers, would never run on Windows crap. And if they tried, it would crash miserably.

Just because a company is a 500, doesnt mean that everything they are using is for Enterprise use. I bet Enterprise companies also have Coca Cola in house, is that Enterprise? And I am deluded?



Funny. I read here(?) from one guy that worked with Supercomputers and Windows - he said that Windows is installed as dual boot. But it is never used. They always boot up Linux on their super computer. I dont know if this is true, but I would not be surprised if it was true.

Not many super computers run Windows. Probably for a reason?



They use 6000 Windows servers to do that. To run a website is easy, just add another node. That is not difficult. This is called horizontal scaling. Any OS can scale horizontally, by just adding a new node.

To scale vertically is very very difficult. And even Linux sucks on scaling vertically. And also IBM AIX. Let us not talk about Windows.



So cluster research is Enterprise? Are you mad? You would never ever let research tech into a stock exchange. Everything has to be rock stable, with high uptime. You often dont touch these systems for many years, even decades. One OpenVMS machine has a reported uptime of 17 years! Research tech or beta tech or new code is never let into those servers.

BTW, you forgot to give a link to a computer gaming site writing "Windows is also used in computer gaming, which is Enterprise"


But according to you it isn't ready for enterprise. How deluded can you possibly be? Yes I know it bothers you and other Unixheads that businesses are buying Windows Server in areas where they used to purchase Unix but it is something that you'll have to get used to. MS has plenty of cash on hand to invest in their software to make it competitive. Instead of making silly claims about Windows Server how about focusing legitimate benefits of Unix. It isn't 1999 anymore, Windows Server 03/08 are massively improved over 2000 and NT 4 and just about every IT publication has acknowledged this.

I am not saying that Windows is still as bad as before. It is getting better, yes. But so is Linux, Unix and OpenVMS. But it is still a piece of shit.

Until recently, even MS didnt knew how all calls where made in the Windows kernel. Everything was a hodge podge, a mess. Until recently, a Windows engineer (russikovich?) started to try to figure out exactly what is happening in Windows kernel. Jesus. Noone knows. No wonder it can run any computer at all.

Lets face it. MS is diminishing. Apple is bigger now. Windows is diminishing, loosing market share to everyone. And the MS products are crap. Failures. Rush a product to the market, and then patch patch patch. Low quality with lots of bugs. The future looks bleak for MS. They are loosing on all fronts. They have never been able to enter Enterprise server grounds, after many many years of trial.

And I am deluded? Good grief.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: .NET not for servers
by nt_jerkface on Mon 5th Jul 2010 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: .NET not for servers"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


The future looks bleak for MS. They are loosing on all fronts. They have never been able to enter Enterprise server grounds, after many many years of trial.

And I am deluded? Good grief.


Loosing? How am I supposed to take you seriously?

And yes you are deluded.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23412/Windows_Increases_Lead_in_Server_...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: .NET not for servers
by Kebabbert on Mon 5th Jul 2010 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: .NET not for servers"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"
The future looks bleak for MS. They are loosing on all fronts. They have never been able to enter Enterprise server grounds, after many many years of trial.

And I am deluded? Good grief.


Loosing? How am I supposed to take you seriously?

And yes you are deluded.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23412/Windows_Increases_Lead_in_Server_...
"
I quote: Windows "have never been able to enter Enterprise server grounds". The key word is Enterprise.

I remember when Windows NT started to sell. It was mostly used as a file server or printer server. Nothing serious. But I bet you, looked at those sales numbers and took it as a evidence that WinNT entered the most critical large scale Enterprise server systems. Let me say this again; Windows is not found in large scale Enterprise systems. Sure, you can find Windows in horizontally scaling web sites. But to run a web site is a different thing, it is easy to do. Just add another node and you increase uptime.

But on a stock exchange, you can not just add another node to get better uptime. We talk about vertical scaling which is a different thing.

I agree that Windows is slowly getting better, it finds it's way into easier server work. But not the heavy duty stuff. It is for Enterprise OSes. Not a toy OS. I can ask you again; why did London throw out the Windows system, if it is so good? Why are there several articles of down time and other problems on the London stock exchange? Sure, Windows suffice for minor things. But not critical large things. Look at msn, it is down all the time.

Seriously, start working with large Enterprise systems (not a easy scaling website) and you will realize why no one uses Windows. Maybe they are dumb, or maybe there is a reason?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: .NET not for servers
by nt_jerkface on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: .NET not for servers"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You said weird things, such as ZFS came to Solaris first. And I told you that ZFS came first to OpenSolaris, and still you persisted. I even showed you wikipedia that says ZFS came first to OpenSolaris, not Solaris. And still you dont believe me. Please, check up your facts. You dont have to believe me, but check up your claims


You mean this Wikipedia article?
Source code for ZFS was integrated into the main trunk of Solaris development on October 31, 2005[4] and released as part of build 27 of OpenSolaris on November 16, 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS

As I said ZFS was developed for Solaris first. It's not my fault if you can't read through your own links.

Here's the original announcement blog from the lead developer:
Boo!

Halloween has been a special day for ZFS since its inception.

On 10/31/2001, we got the user-level prototype working.

On 10/31/2002, we got the first in-kernel mount.

And today, 10/31/2005, we integrated into Solaris.


http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_the_last_word_in

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: .NET not for servers
by Kebabbert on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: .NET not for servers"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"You said weird things, such as ZFS came to Solaris first. And I told you that ZFS came first to OpenSolaris, and still you persisted. I even showed you wikipedia that says ZFS came first to OpenSolaris, not Solaris. And still you dont believe me. Please, check up your facts. You dont have to believe me, but check up your claims


You mean this Wikipedia article?
Source code for ZFS was integrated into the main trunk of Solaris development on October 31, 2005[4] and released as part of build 27 of OpenSolaris on November 16, 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS

As I said ZFS was developed for Solaris first. It's not my fault if you can't read through your own links.

http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_the_last_word_in
"
Yes, I mean that very Wikipedia article. The same. How about you check up your facts first before posting anything at all here? You are totally lost. I suggest you read that link again. CAREFULLY.

Have I told you that you are getting tiresome? You have no clue at all. Or, you know, but FUD and lie deliberately. Now, can you stop lie about Solaris and OpenSolaris?

Reply Score: 2

.NET is a poor strategic choice
by StaubSaugerNZ on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 08:37 UTC
StaubSaugerNZ
Member since:
2007-07-13

Wow, OS-News has certainly gained a lot more closed-minded Windows proponents of late.

I've been developing for around 20 years. Used a lot of languages and platforms including C/C++/Fortran/Perl/Sh/Java/C#.NET. May favourite development environment is Java for the following reasons:

Java is fast
It runs damned fast. Not like it was in 1995 or 2000. After Java 1.6.0_u10 everything is blazingly quick and all graphics are shader accelerated - and I didn't even have to change a line of code to do it.

I don't know whether Microsoft still prohibit but in the middle of this decade it used to be that the licensing terms for .NET prohibited benchmarks (they wanted to avoid a direct comparison of C# against Java). I'm sure .NET is now faster than it was, but so is Java.

The supercomputer people of the French scientific organization INRIA rated Java approaching FORTRAN for speed (this speeds is faster than C++) [August 2008]:
http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00312039/en

Java is portabile
It is funny hearing people using .NET because all their customers are on Windows. Well duh! You are losing money because now you can't sell to all those customers on the Mac. That is a poor business decision you have made.

I used to hear the same argument when I was told to develop dynamic web pages for Internet Explorer 6 (IE6) and only IE6 even though creating W3C compliant web pages made more sense. These days it is now ridiculous to all that anyone would make such a bone-headed move. It is the same situation with .NET and Java. Why choose a declining 90% of the market when you could instead something that works on Windows AND just about everything else? It just doesn't stack up from a strategic point of view.

You don't need native widgets. The recent Nimbus theme of Swing looks great. Several personal apps I've made and distributed to my flight-simming friends get comments about how good the apps look. Here's a sample of a (mostly-complete) applet I made for scoring combat:
http://stallturn.com/scores/
Not too ugly.

There was an interesting article on portability (admittedly C++). Because this developer chose OpenGL over DirectX he was able to increase his sales from 100,000 to 600,000 in two weeks with the advent of the iPhone. This increase was worth $3.5 million to him. If he'd been a Windows-only technology he would have missed out on that revenue. That is why you need strategic platform flexibility - which Java gives and .NET does not. [.NET does not work on the iPhone, whereas Java will using gcj although a true JVM is prohibited by Apple]. Here is the article descrbing this:
http://techhaze.com/2010/03/interview-with-x-plane-creator-austin-m...

If Java didn't work on Windows and only .NET did the choice would be clear - but Java does work on Windows and everything else. You can have the whole pie and not half of the crust (the server space) and 80-90% of the delicious filling (the desktop space). Have the whole pie and make more money with Java.


Java gets you a job

There are a lot more jobs in Java than C#.

I'm currently working in an internet-scale development project for a large American company who I cannot name until the end of the year. We use Java on Linux. Why? It is fast, portable and cheap. When you are running internet scale applications (millions of users) all around the globe Windows is simply not cost-efficient at those scales. Windows is also a pain in the butt at those scales since Linux has better automation options (but this is not a Windows vs Linux debate so I'll stop there).

Don't believe Java has more jobs in development? Check the real facts in job numbers:
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
Even with the economic downturn and lots of Enterprise-grade projects on hold Java still has a lot more activity than C# by a factor of nearly four.

Java saves you money
This is what it is all about - money. Building stuff in Java costs less than in C++. Java also has far better tools than C++ and C# for ensuring code quality. It is a shame Windows developers never seem to know about these tools - an IDE is just the tip of the iceberg. Java also has far more extensive libraries (3rd party especially) than its rivals. Using these good quality libraries saves your team a huge amount of time (which is money). Java also has a lot more mature software engineering practices associated with it. That's why Spring, Maven, Hudson and the like come out for Java.

Java is stable
With Java you can choose your platform to save money (cheap PCs - which are low-end) or more expensive and reliable mainframes.

Java also changes predictably and doesn't deprecate features as quickly as .NET (which Microsoft must do to get more revenue from you). This means you are not re-writing your apps all the time - which increases your profitability. People think that Java doesn't innovate when in fact the changes are deliberate and conservative. There is no faster Rapid Application Development (RAD) process than not having to re-write all your apps every two years to match the changes in you IDE (as you need to do to maintain you projects with Visual Studio).

In summary. The .NET platform is ok, but it is a far poorer strategic choice than Java. If you are writing stuff for the long term, internet scale deployments, or for multi-platforms (even more important these days) then .NET is simply not a contender. Those of you arguing otherwise are merely highlighting you lack of experience and close-mindedness to the increasing diversity in the IT world (after a decade of decreasing diversity).

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


It is funny hearing people using .NET because all their customers are on Windows. Well duh! You are losing money because now you can't sell to all those customers on the Mac. That is a poor business decision you have made.


Most software is in-house where Macs are extremely rare.

But even with retail software Macs can be targeted with Mono.

Anyways thanks for the manuscript on why Java is totally awesome. You can talk all day but the fact remains that consumer Java applications are rare. Now please provide a retort that contains the same two IDEs and bit torrent client that Java proponents have cited as flagship applications for years.

Java is dead on the desktop, sorry you didn't get the memo.

Reply Score: 2

shis-ka-bob Member since:
2007-02-05

Nearly everything that I am seeing for professional work is web development. Other than My Space, show me another top web site that is running on .Net. LinkedIn? Google? Amazon? Twitter? FaceBook? These is more Erlang and Scala, two decidedly offbeat languages, than .Net at these companies.

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What does that have to do with desktop development?

I was responding to the parent who was talking about desktop software.

Not sure what listing those websites is supposed to prove anyways. Google and Amazon were built before asp.net but even if it had been an option I don't see what that would prove.

It's clear that high-end websites can be built with asp.net which clearly bothers ABMrs who seem to take religious offense at Windows in the server room. If you don't want to use asp.net then that is fine but don't delude yourself into thinking that Google or Amazon couldn't be ran on .net.

Reply Score: 2

Fun !
by TBPrince on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 11:37 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

lol Video is fun... while Java is not ;-)

As for Java vs .NET debate, this is long over: just look at server sales. Plus Java will have really bad times on mobile and desktop.

Anyway, life is wonderful because anyone can choose whatever they like to do the job. Unix shops will still consider Java as the best while MS shops will prefer .NET. And we know what newcomers are choosing based on server sales.

But video is great :-P

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fun !
by spiderman on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 11:51 UTC in reply to "Fun !"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Java will have really bad times on mobile

Mobile is all about java actually.

Reply Score: 2

Valid comparison?
by dootnetman on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 15:45 UTC
dootnetman
Member since:
2010-07-02

I don't get the comparison!

Java is a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE and .NET is a complete run-time framework supporting a number of languages.

What gives?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Valid comparison?
by kmarius on Sun 4th Jul 2010 20:52 UTC in reply to "Valid comparison?"
kmarius Member since:
2005-06-30

I know it's easy to be confused. But Java is the name of both a programming language and a platform

You have Java - the programming language (like C#) and Java the platform (like .net)

Java (the programming language) runs on JVM, which is similar to Microsofts CLR and can run many different langauges (like Scala, Python, Ruby, PHP and others)

Reply Score: 1

Background sound
by csasso on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 00:16 UTC
csasso
Member since:
2007-02-27

When at the dinner the son announces his "secret", one can hear the sound Windows plays during the shutdown sequence. It is subtle, but once you notice it, you won't miss it again.

Reply Score: 1

Stupid
by trenchsol on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 23:52 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

I think that video is stupid. It is based on a sentiment that makes me spend less and less time on IT forums. Simply, I don't have anything to add to the discussions like X is good and Y is bad.

Computers are business in the first place. Computers are fun, also. They are not religion. Operating system or development technology is not something that one should be loyal to.

I am doing my job in Java, because, across the board, it serves me best. I used to do some PHP stuff, but it soes not serve me as good as Java, because I can do more in less time with Java. I was in the situation to do some work in VB.Net. Both Java and PHP serve me better than .NET. It does not mean that I have some feelings towards Java, it just suits my needs. I don't ask my self what can I do for Java, instead I ask what Java can do for me.

Reply Score: 2