Regarding the Petshop, there was a great deal of discussion about it on TSS a few months ago.
In fact, apparently, the petshop on the Java side wasn't designed to be efficient, just a show case. Which, we agree, is quite a shame. However, further points where disturbing : - versions of the databases' drivers were different. In the case of the JDBc driver it was an old one. - the choice of the databases is also crucial in such cironcstance, and it wasn't fully transparent either. On the .Net side they did devote a whole team to improve the code. To be fair, they told the TSS crowd they would make any change deemed necessary (by the TSS crowd) to the Java petShop code, but the issues above, about the databases, remained unsolved. All in all, I consider it quite hard to judge with this example. But, as usual, it's just my 2 cents ;) Cheers, ZedroS On 1/27/06, Michael Scano < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Tony, > > Thanks for sharing your experiences with .NET. I > appreciate your candor and taking the time. One thing > I didn't see you mention in the core support for XML. > Do you know how much of an advantage this is compared > to the the way in which Java works with XML. > > BTW, I visited the dotnet teams result page on their > port of the Java Petshop reference application to .NET > and my jaw dropped. Unless they're stretching the > truth and exagerating wildly, I can't see how Java can > compete. Have you seen this? > > http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/veritest.aspx > > How close to reality do you think their results are. > > -Michael D. > > --- David Delbecq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Tony, > > > > am what you could call a junior programmer (less > > than 3 years expérience un j2ee) > > I'll just respond to a few java related point, as i > > don't know .NET > > - You say primitives are not nullable. If you need a > > nullable integer, use java.lang.Integer. > > - Operators overloading is something i consider > > dangerous, and i thanks sun for not implementing > > those > > - We are developping here a webapp which need to be > > deployed at several 'clients', whose server > > range from linux to windows to HP-UX, so > > cross-platform is an important constraint :) This > > explains the use of java. > > - The 'only one language' of JAVA compared to .NET > > make it easier for company to manage the > > knowledge of developpers, which can compensate the > > knowledge spreading across the various libraries > > > > Those too are only my opinions, and as you express > > yours, i express mine :) > > > > BTW, i don't think there is a conflict .NET <-> J2EE > > Simply use the right tool for the right purpose. > > > > Le Mercredi 25 Janvier 2006 04:27, Tony LaPaso a > > écrit : > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I should mention that this post is a bit off > > topic. If you hate > > > Microsoft then stop reading now and I'm sorry for > > wasting your time. I > > > don't own stock in Microsoft, I don't know Bill > > Gates and nobody paid > > > me or asked me to say the things I wrote below. > > These are just my > > > opinions based on my experiences with many years > > in Java and two months > > > of learning .NET/C# 2.0. > > > > > > I've been programming in Java/J2EE for the past 8+ > > years, most of this > > > time as a contractor for several companies on many > > J2EE projects. I > > > even have a small (and now hopelessly out of date) > > Java web site that > > > I've maintained for the past 5+ years at > > www.absolutejava.com, which > > > will be removed in early May. > > > > > > Until about 8 weeks ago, I never even considered > > looking at anything > > > Microsoft offered. Recently though, on a whim, I > > browsed over to the > > > Microsoft site because I'd heard about their new > > release of Visual > > > Studio. I'd been a Windows programmer back in the > > mid '90s and was > > > curious to see how Visual Studio (it was Visual > > C++ back then) had > > > evolved (or not). > > > > > > I didn't download Visual Studio but instead I > > downloaded a couple free > > > tutorial videos for Microsoft's "Web Developer > > Express" product (which > > > is a free product, BTW). "Web Developer Express" > > has a subset of the > > > features in the full "Visual Studio" product and > > is used for building > > > server-side (or client side, for that matter) web > > apps. I couldn't > > > believe what I saw. "Web Developer Express" blows > > away anything we have > > > in the Java world for developing server-side web > > apps. It was kind of a > > > jaw-dropping experience to see what the tool can > > do and what ASP.NET > > > offers compared to servlets/JSP/Struts/JSTL/JSF. > > > > > > I don't want to turn this post into a "feature by > > feature" comparison > > > of ASP.NET and equivalent Java technologies. My > > impression, though, > > > from watching these tutorial videos is that we in > > the J2EE world are > > > living like knuckle-dragging Barbarians, > > scratching out an existence > > > clothed in bear skins, using stone knives and > > sticks as our tools of > > > choice. Those using .NET are living in fine brick > > homes with hardwood > > > floors, fireplaces and regular visits from PeaPod. > > > > > > After looking at ASP.NET I became interested in > > looking at the C# > > > language, proper. My impressions of C# vs. Java > > mirrored those of > > > ASP.NET vs. servlets/JSP/etc. Java has kludgey > > support for properties > > > and events (they're just regular methods with > > parameters) while C# has > > > the constructs (delegates & events) built directly > > into the core > > > language. C# also supports co-routines, something > > we have to simulate > > > in Java as well as "out parameters" (which allow a > > method to change the > > > caller's parameter's value) and operator > > overloading. C# also has > > > "nullable" types. Imagine Java's primitive types > > being able to hold > > > null values. This is highly useful when working > > with databases. > > > > > > Finally, .NET provides an integrated and more > > comprehensive approach to > > > setting security permissions and versioning of > > what are called, > > > "assemblies". Assemblies are very roughly > > equivalent to JARs. This > > > allows you to compile your code against a specific > > version of an > > > assembly and have that version information > > maintained in the resulting > > > executable. It also allows several versions of the > > same assemblies > > > (again, think "JARs") to co-exist peacefully in a > > global, system-wide > > > cache of assemblies. Sun should have given us > > something like this five > > > years ago. > > > > > > Another advantage I saw with .NET is that it is > > more "cross language" > > > friendly than Java. First of all, .NET, like Java, > > executes a "platform > > > neutral" representation of a program (analogous to > > Java bytecode). > > > Unlike Java, .NET programs can be written in many > > languages (C#, C++, > > > Perl, Python, J#, VB, and many others). > > Microsoft's J# is, from what > > > I've seen, a clone of Java (although I'm sure > > there are differences). > > > The point I want to make is that once compiled, > > .NET programs can call > > > each other seamlessly, regardless of the language > > the programs were > > > originally written in. So for example, a J# class > > can extend a C# class > > > which can extend a VB class. You're not tied to > > one language like you > > > are in Java. > > > > > > I know that, theoretically, any language could > > potentially be compiled > > > into Java bytecode (I guess Groovy is an example). > > Practically, > > > however, this is not commonly done. > > > > > > Suffice it say, I am switching after 8+ years in > > Java. It was a tough > > > decision at first because I have so much time and > > effort invested in > > > Java. When I eventually get on a .NET project I > > will be starting over > > > as a junior person making a junior person's > > salary. That won't be > > > pleasant. I have close to $1,000 in Java books > > that I've accumulated > > > over the years that are now for sale on Amazon. > > Ultimately though, I > > > felt I'd be able to spend more time actually > > writing code on a single > > > consistent, and what seems to be superior platform > > (.NET) rather than > > > gluing together a half dozen open source tools > > with XML files, which it > > > seems J2EE requires far too much of. > > > > > > To me, J2EE has become too fat and burdensome in > > the past few years, > > > especially with the proliferation of so many > > competing open source > > > projects. I think too much choice can be as bad as > > not enough choice. > > > > > > BTW, I realize .NET is not perceived as being as > > "cross platform" as > > > Java (although that's changing as the Mono Project > > > > > [ http://www.mono-project.com] gains traction). > > Initially, this lack of > > > "cross platformability" gave me cause for > > hesitation. But then I > > > started thinking of all the J2EE projects I'd been > > on in the past 8 > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
