 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / September 2006Microsoft .NET?
I have been asked to investigate whether we should consider using Microsoft .NET for some of our services. I've done a few searches but I can't find a succinct summary of what it's about. Does anyone have a view as to whether this is something worth exploring? Thanks. > I have been asked to investigate whether we should consider using > Microsoft .NET for some of our services. I've done a few searches but I > can't find a succinct summary of what it's about. > > Does anyone have a view as to whether this is something worth > exploring? Was there some connection to Java in that question? If it is Java v. .NET, try comp.java.lang.advocacy. Andrew T. In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is non-portable copy of Java. You know: NAnt, NUnit, NiBATIS, NHibernate,... not only the language. Or maybe he's some sort of MS consultant, trying to get some feedback. Haha, it's funny. >> I have been asked to investigate whether we should consider using >> Microsoft .NET for some of our services. I've done a few searches but I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Andrew T. Sorry, I should have been clearer (and I'm not particularly technical so bear with me). We currently use Java / J2EE exclusively and I've received a recommendation - from someone external - that it may be worth exploring the capabilities of .NET for two reasons: 1) To explore whether it may be a better choice for certain types of application 2) To explore whether it would be valuable to have an alternative platform within the organisation as we have had some difficulties with our current supplier I realise that this may not be a sensible option but I wanted to at least consider it, even if we don't pursue it. And wondered whether anyone else has already been down a similar road. Thanks John. > In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is > non-portable copy of Java. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Andrew T. > Sorry, I should have been clearer (and I'm not particularly technical > so bear with me). We currently use Java / J2EE exclusively and I've [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > platform within the organisation as we have had some difficulties with > our current supplier What does your supplier supply? > Sorry, I should have been clearer (and I'm not particularly technical > so bear with me). We currently use Java / J2EE exclusively and I've [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > least consider it, even if we don't pursue it. And wondered whether > anyone else has already been down a similar road. You should probably consult someone technical within your team. Being on your team, that person will have much more insight into exactly what difficulties you are currently experiencing, what your business process is like, what changes will have to be made, etc. With this information, you might then be able to answer the bottomline question of "What are the benefits? What are the costs? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?" and make a business decision from there. Otherwise, you'll probably end up playing 20-questions on the newsgroups. E.g. What difficulties have you been having with Java so far? - Oliver > 2) To explore whether it would be valuable to have an alternative > platform within the organisation as we have had some difficulties with > our current supplier Yes, ditto. What the heck is being "supplied" that could be fixed by switching platforms? Is perhaps Tomcat or JBoss sometimes hard to download 'cause the site is temporarily down? Or do you mean that the external Java programmers you have are unreliable? If the latter, well, this is a great place to ask for competent Java consultants. We do allow "help wanted" missives here. Sorry, I should have been clearer (and I'm not particularly technical so bear with me). We currently use Java / J2EE exclusively and I've received a recommendation - from someone external - that it may be worth exploring the capabilities of .NET for two reasons: 1) To explore whether it may be a better choice for certain types of application 2) To explore whether it would be valuable to have an alternative platform within the organisation as we have had some difficulties with our current supplier I realise that this may not be a sensible option but I wanted to at least consider it, even if we don't pursue it. And wondered whether anyone else has already been down a similar road. Thanks John. Having used both platforms I can say the following: If U are looking at developing Desktop applications with loads of forms, buttons, user controls etc....I feel .NET is more user friendly than JAVA(I know I am going to get it for this.. :).) But if U are looking at good security model and applet programming then JAVA might be a better choice... So, Get to know the problems first and then a choice. Suma > In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is > non-portable copy of Java. Well, Mono took care of that issue. For all practical purposes .NET is just as portable as Java. J2SE that is. I don't know about ME. BTW, just after the big Sun-MS settlement, head honchos of both companies boasted about making the platforms interoperable. Does anyone know what became of it? >> In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is >> non-portable copy of Java. > > Well, Mono took care of that issue. For all practical purposes .NET is > just as portable as Java. J2SE that is. I don't know about ME. No no no. .NET is not as portable as Java. If you want to make a J2SE implementation you have to implement 100% of the functionality. SUN has a test kit to verify it. And if you do not obey, then you get a visit by SUN's laweyrs. MS paid 20 M$ for this. Mono implement 66-90% of .NET (I have not counted) as the volunteers are willing to spend time and it is technical feasible. A huge portion of real world .NET would actually not run on Mono unchanged. Arne >>> In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is >>> non-portable copy of Java. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > A huge portion of real world .NET would actually not run on Mono > unchanged. If you stay away from Windows-specific libs/calls, you're pretty safe. >> .NET is not as portable as Java. [...] >> A huge portion of real world .NET would actually not run on Mono >> unchanged. > > If you stay away from Windows-specific libs/calls, you're pretty safe. If you're going to stay away from Windows-specific lib/calls, might as well stick with Java. I think one of the parts Mono hasn't implemented is WinForms (the .NET equivalent of Java's Swing). Instead, Mono uses GTK# (I'd make an analogy with SWT, since the user needs to download a third party library to get that GUI lib to work). - Oliver >>> .NET is not as portable as Java. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > analogy with SWT, since the user needs to download a third party library > to get that GUI lib to work). With Mono/IKVM you can even use GTK# in Java! OK, then you have to run your Java program using Mono, but hey, nobody's perfect, right? ;-) > If you stay away from Windows-specific libs/calls, you're pretty safe. That is an oversimplification. Look at http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/mono-HEAD-vs-fx-2/ almost all assemblies/namespaces has small missing parts. Arne >> If you stay away from Windows-specific libs/calls, you're pretty safe. > > That is an oversimplification. > > Look at http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/mono-HEAD-vs-fx-2/ > almost all assemblies/namespaces has small missing parts. So use Mono \intersection .NET or development. It takes an extra effort, but... > So use Mono \intersection .NET or development. It takes an extra effort, > but... Si .NET is portable if one tests that it works on all .NET platforms. By that definition all languages are portable. What makes Java special is the strictness by which compliance is defines. Arne >> So use Mono \intersection .NET or development. It takes an extra >> effort, but... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What makes Java special is the strictness by which > compliance is defines. I agree. I wasn't aiming for that strictness, though. That's why I said "For all practical purposes". And if you want to be really strict, let me explain something. In order for some (100% pure) Java applications to work (really work in a long term, not just compile and plausibly run for a minute or two), one has to fine tune not only a JVM, but also an underlying OS. And this fine tuning effectively changes with every new version (even minor and/or micro) of JVM as well as OS. Bottom line is that all that really remains of that (in)famous write-once-run-everywhere(anywhere) buzz-phrase, is that "it compiles". At best. >>> So use Mono \intersection .NET or development. It takes an extra effort, >>> but... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > write-once-run-everywhere(anywhere) buzz-phrase, is that "it compiles". At > best. Well, if you want to be extra super strict, no application can ever be guaranteed to work for more than a minute or two, if we allow for the OS to change in unexpected ways which don't guarantee backwards compatibility. If we make "normal" assumptions about the computing environment (a meteor won't fall out of the sky and strike the computer, we don't try to hotswap from one JVM to another incompatible JVM, etc.) I don't see why a Java program shouldn't be able to run for longer than 2 minutes (nor a C# or C program for that matter). I've got a few Java applications which, IMHO, "work", and have been working for longer than 2 minutes, and I didn't finetune the JVM or the underlying OS (unless installing the JVM itself is considered a form of finetuning the OS): Azureus, Eclipse, jEdit, etc. - Oliver > If we make "normal" assumptions about the computing environment (a > meteor won't fall out of the sky and strike the computer, we don't try > to hotswap from one JVM to another incompatible JVM, etc. I didn't say hotswap. I meant normal replacement. > ) I don't see > why a Java program shouldn't be able to run for longer than 2 minutes > (nor a C# or C program for that matter). Well, there are apps using, say, 95-100% of resources (sustainably!) of a particular computer they run on. This is very different from your average-every-day desktop app. And when you try to utilize that much, you inadvertedly run into trouble. And that's what I meant. > I've got a few Java applications which, IMHO, "work", and have been > working for longer than 2 minutes, and I didn't finetune the JVM or the > underlying OS (unless installing the JVM itself is considered a form of > finetuning the OS): Azureus, Eclipse, jEdit, etc. Those three are (very close to) your average apps. >> What makes Java special is the strictness by which >> compliance is defines. > > I agree. I wasn't aiming for that strictness, though. That's why I said > "For all practical purposes". So in practice .NET programs does not use: registry, COM, Access databases, Win forms and VB.NET ? > And if you want to be really strict, let me explain something. In order > for some (100% pure) Java applications to work (really work in a long > term, not just compile and plausibly run for a minute or two), one has > to fine tune not only a JVM, but also an underlying OS. I do not know what world you live in, but belive me : most Java apps runs in configs where OS and JVM are not fine tuned to be able to run Java apps more than 2 minutes. > Bottom line is that all that really remains of that (in)famous > write-once-run-everywhere(anywhere) buzz-phrase, is that "it compiles". > At best. I think we have demonstrated so many flaws in your arguments that we can safely skip your conclusion. (there are actually people out there developing apps on one platform that are running on other platforms) Arne >>> What makes Java special is the strictness by which >>> compliance is defines. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So in practice .NET programs does not use: registry, COM, Access > databases, Win forms and VB.NET ? Those written by smart developers don't. ;-) >> And if you want to be really strict, let me explain something. In >> order for some (100% pure) Java applications to work (really work in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Java apps runs in configs where OS and JVM are not fine tuned > to be able to run Java apps more than 2 minutes. I live in exactly the same world as you. I know that the majority of apps run just fine^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heverywhere. >> Bottom line is that all that really remains of that (in)famous >> write-once-run-everywhere(anywhere) buzz-phrase, is that "it >> compiles". At best. > > I think we have demonstrated so many flaws in your arguments > that we can safely skip your conclusion. Really? I think that just by citing one pure Java app demonstrating what I just said would render _your_ conclusion flawed. > (there are actually people out there developing apps on one > platform that are running on other platforms) Don't get me wrong. I too am developing apps on more than one platform. And I chose Java over .NET and Mono. But that doesn't make the latter two "just go away". >> I think we have demonstrated so many flaws in your arguments >> that we can safely skip your conclusion. > > Really? I think that just by citing one pure Java app demonstrating what > I just said would render _your_ conclusion flawed. If many and one mean the same: yes. Arne >>> I think we have demonstrated so many flaws in your arguments >>> that we can safely skip your conclusion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If many and one mean the same: yes. I said _some_ java apps. How many is some? I'd say three would be enough, don't you think? And if you want to be strict, would you tell me, please, which are the "demonstrated flaws in my arguments" (plural, remember!)? > I said _some_ java apps. How many is some? I'd say three would be enough, > don't you think? You did indeed say "some", but since, in the following paragraph, you summed up the message as: > Bottom line is that all that really remains of that (in)famous > write-once-run-everywhere(anywhere) buzz-phrase, is that "it compiles". > At best. the impression you left /me/ with was that you didn't mean "in a few, perhaps exceptional, cases" but "in most or all important cases" (and hence that you were a Frothing Loon). If all you mean is that Java looks portable, but that there are realities to consider too -- and that in some cases they can cause severe problems -- then I doubt if anyone here would disagree (except Frothing Loons ;-). BTW, my own impression of Mono (as an uninformed outsider) is that it could be summed up in the phrase "it's not dead yet"; is that wrong ? Is Mono in production use ? -- chris >> I said _some_ java apps. How many is some? I'd say three would be enough, >> don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > exceptional, cases" but "in most or all important cases" (and hence that you > were a Frothing Loon). I'm sorry I gave that impression. But, again, _strictly_ speaking, if you want to be sure it "runs everywhere", you have to test it everywhere, too. Windows should run on almost every imaginable PC, right? Well, except on those on which it doesn't. Anyone read some EULA lately? They invariably contain the "we're not liable" clause. Ever wonder why? I guess it's there to cover those <khm/> few (sic!) exceptional cases. Then again, if those exceptional cases were really so few, why don't they simply list those and be liable for the rest - the non-exceptional ones? Now imagine how liable can Sun be for behaviour of their JVMs running on top of "we're not liable" OSs? That said, yes, I'm a Loon. LWA. > If all you mean is that Java looks portable, but that there are realities to > consider too -- and that in some cases they can cause severe problems -- then I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > summed up in the phrase "it's not dead yet"; is that wrong ? Is Mono in > production use ? I wouldn't know. For me (for the time being, anyway) it's just an experimental platform. > Windows should run on almost every imaginable PC, right? Well, except on > those on which it doesn't. Anyone read some EULA lately? They invariably > contain the "we're not liable" clause. Ever wonder why? I guess it's there > to cover those <khm/> few (sic!) exceptional cases. Then again, if those > exceptional cases were really so few, why don't they simply list those and > be liable for the rest - the non-exceptional ones? It's a standard clause that's easy for them to put because so few people protest. Even the GPL contains similar wording: <quote> THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. </quote> and the GPL is about as anti-Microsoft as you can get. - Oliver > BTW, my own impression of Mono (as an uninformed outsider) is that it > could be > summed up in the phrase "it's not dead yet"; is that wrong ? Is Mono in > production use ? http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono - Oliver >> BTW, my own impression of Mono (as an uninformed outsider) is that it >> could be >> summed up in the phrase "it's not dead yet"; is that wrong ? Is Mono in >> production use ? > > http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono It is used. But that list is not super impressive. Arne [me:] > > BTW, my own impression of Mono (as an uninformed outsider) is that it > > could be > > summed up in the phrase "it's not dead yet"; is that wrong ? Is Mono in > > production use ? > > http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono Thank you. -- chris >>>> I think we have demonstrated so many flaws in your arguments >>>> that we can safely skip your conclusion. >>> >>> Really? I think that just by citing one pure Java app demonstrating ^^^ >>> what I just said would render _your_ conclusion flawed. >> >> If many and one mean the same: yes. > > I said _some_ java apps. I read "one" above. > And if you want to be strict, would you tell me, please, which are the > "demonstrated flaws in my arguments" (plural, remember!)? portable - which turned out to be using the common subset non windows specific OK - does not match mono's own web site OS share - forgot server OS'es and embedded OS'es Arne >>>>> I think we have demonstrated so many flaws in your arguments >>>>> that we can safely skip your conclusion. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I read "one" above. In one of my posts I said: "In order for some (100% pure) Java applications to work...". So, if I cited just one, there would be a flaw in your conclusion. If I cited three, I'd prove it totaly wrong. >> And if you want to be strict, would you tell me, please, which are the >> "demonstrated flaws in my arguments" (plural, remember!)? > > portable - which turned out to be using the common subset > non windows specific OK - does not match mono's own web site > OS share - forgot server OS'es and embedded OS'es I'm not sure which goes with which here. But I'll try. I specifically said "for all practical purposes". You conveniently neglect that fact. I specified Supported Operating Systems from mono's own website. To find percentages, I used Google. You mean to tell me that Linux, BSD, Solaris etc. are not server OSes? Moreover, there should be even less trouble there since server stuff doesn't use GUI as much. As for the embeded ones: I said that it was just a matter of time. Linux runs smoothly on embeded devices. More so than Windows. And Mono runs on Linux. Anything else? >> In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is >> non-portable copy of Java. > > Well, Mono took care of that issue. For all practical purposes .NET is just as > portable as Java. J2SE that is. I don't know about ME. .NET is not NEARLY as portable as Java. This claim is absolutely ridiculous. >>> In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is >>> non-portable copy of Java. >> Well, Mono took care of that issue. For all practical purposes .NET is just as >> portable as Java. J2SE that is. I don't know about ME. > > .NET is not NEARLY as portable as Java. Care to elaborate? >>>> In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is >>>> non-portable copy of Java. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Care to elaborate? Java runs on many more platforms/operating systems than .NET does. >>>>> In some sense, maybe he thinks there was some connection, as .NET is >>>>> non-portable copy of Java. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Java runs on many more platforms/operating systems than .NET does. .NET and Mono cover Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS X, BSD and Solaris. Between them, those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. Care to elaborate some more? > Between them, those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. Yes, if you ignore handhelds/mobile phones and other devices, which have Java but not .Net. (Percentages are pointless anyway: I't not like owners of Königsegg custom-made cars cry themselves to sleep every night because they didn't buy a Toyota like everyone else.) >> Between them, those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. > > Yes, if you ignore handhelds/mobile phones and other devices, which > have Java but not .Net. This is just a matter of time. Moreover, there is no J2SE on mobile devices. Which would render Mono on Linux (which lives on mobile devices likea fish in the water) analogous to J2ME. > (Percentages are pointless anyway: I't not like owners of Königsegg > custom-made cars cry themselves to sleep every night because they > didn't buy a Toyota like everyone else.) Me neither. ;-) > .NET and Mono cover Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS X, BSD and Solaris. Between them, > those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. > > Care to elaborate some more? What a limited little world you live in. >> .NET and Mono cover Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS X, BSD and Solaris. Between them, >> those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. >> >> Care to elaborate some more? > > What a limited little world you live in. Show us yours then. The world, that is. > .NET and Mono cover Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS X, BSD and Solaris. > Between them, those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. Are you sure that z/OS (MVS), i5/OS (OS/400), AIX, Tru64, HP-UX, OpenVMS, MacOS pre-X only count for 1% of computers ? Arne >> .NET and Mono cover Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS X, BSD and Solaris. >> Between them, those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. > > Are you sure that z/OS (MVS), i5/OS (OS/400), AIX, Tru64, HP-UX, > OpenVMS, MacOS pre-X only count for 1% of computers ? I'm not. Nobody can be. If you have more acccurate information available, please, show us. >>> .NET and Mono cover Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS X, BSD and Solaris. >>> Between them, those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm not. Nobody can be. If you have more acccurate information > available, please, show us. I would say that it is you who have to prove your number not us that have to prove it wrong. Arne >>>> .NET and Mono cover Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS X, BSD and Solaris. >>>> Between them, those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I would say that it is you who have to prove your number > not us that have to prove it wrong. I can't _prove_ it, of course. But here are a few sources that just might illustrate my point: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2 http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=40481&DisplayTab=Article http://www.methodshop.com/2005/12/apple-os-market-share-breaks-4_22.shtml Mono on Linux, OS/X is not the equivallent of .NET on Windows, in the same way that Java on Linux, OS/X (et al) *is* the equivallent of Java on Windows. You're not comparing apples with apples. .NET is supported properly on Windows and poorly (via Mono) on Linux, OS/X. Java is available in it's full glory on all those platforms. And you don't have to use different GUI code on each of them. > Mono on Linux, OS/X is not the equivallent of .NET on Windows, in the > same way that Java on Linux, OS/X (et al) *is* the equivallent of Java [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > OS/X. Java is available in it's full glory on all those platforms. > And you don't have to use different GUI code on each of them. You don't have to. But you _can_. Using 1. (plain) AWT or 2. SWT. BTW, using GTK# you can use the same GUI on Java as well as on Mono/IKVM. >>>>> .NET and Mono cover Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS X, BSD and Solaris. >>>>> Between them, those OS's cover, say, 99% of all OS installations. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=40481&DisplayTab=Article > http://www.methodshop.com/2005/12/apple-os-market-share-breaks-4_22.shtml #1 and #3 are browser OS stats (#2 requires registration). Except for MacOS pre-X then I think is a fair assumption that none of the OS not on your list is used for browsing. That does not prevent them from being used for other purposes though. If you originally intended to say that 99% of desktop OS'es can run .NET, then I still belive that 98% is closer, but no doubt that the percentage is over 95. But there are another world. Arne Arne > I have been asked to investigate whether we should consider using > Microsoft .NET for some of our services. (golf clap) Good troll, John. Two posts from you has started a boring, pointless, off-topic thread that has just hit 40 posts, with no sign of easing up soon. Andrew T. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.