This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
.Net:... 3 Years Later
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, as a Penn State Student I have worked with both .NET and Unix/PHP/Perl/Apache environments. Without a doubt, the latter of the two was far superior in every aspect, INCLUDING EASE OF USE. PHP has got to be the easiest freakin language ever, and Apache trumps IIS with the ability to do the majority of configuring with one file, instead of having to browse through a maze of tabbed windows with options, checkboxes, pop-up boxes, etc.
Without a doubt, the only reasons to use .NET would be if (a), you already have a Microsoft solution and for some reason you want to keep it, or (b), you fall to marketing hype.
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention STABILITY and SECURITY...
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of things are "easier" than ASP.NET/ADO.NET coded using an OOP language. For simple things you're better off using something like PHP or ASP/VBS. Of course when project complexity reaches a certain point you'll start to find real advantages to going with a modern approach that seperates the presentation layer from the business layer. Of course taking this approach can make writing a simple application seem daunting, but in the long run it pays off.
It has a lot to do with simply knowing what sort of application you're going to be writing and picking the proper tool for the job.
Apache trumps IIS with the ability to do the majority of configuring with one file, instead of having to browse through a maze of tabbed windows with options, checkboxes, pop-up boxes, etc.
Totally. 100% agreed. Much easier to administer Apache via it's text configuration IMO.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just easier to use a gui - not faster but certainly easier.
Maybe for you it is, personally I find a nice clean xml config file way easier to deal with.
I remember one incident trying to get iis to serve up a file. I had to alter the "security" settings in no less than 3 different iis menus befor the frickin thing would serve it up.
The menus are like a maze that one must climb through. The feature that you want could be anywhere in that maze. With XML and a decent editor you can just do a find.
they fall somewhat short on some of the advanced features businesses need for enterprise apps
Or perhaps just think they need after a bunch of marketing mumbojumbo. There are pretty big sites on the net that use Apachr/PHP, Bravenet.com [bravenet.com] comes to mind, you could probably find others at netcraft.com [netcraft.com] I don't use this setup personally, but I see a quite a few large sites that do, and they seem to be making money.
it's java for windows basically
I will never understand why people would write in a "java for windows" when they can write in a Java for all operating systems. C# seems to me like a less sophisticated version of Java that has the added drawback of locking you in to a single platform.
.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Insightful)
Three years in and I believe it is fair to say that most people do not understand exactly what .Net is --
other than a vague "trust me" monolithic solution.
Which I believe is the core of its problem. While there are some fools who will buy anything that fill in the name of their favorite supplier offers, more of the market wants to make decisions for themelves.
From the little I've had time to study .Net, there were
a few aspects of it that were indeed superior to what
had proceeded it on the market. But the information
to make a cohesive strategy was just missing. What
if I liked the characteristics of the run-time engine,
but needed to stick with CORBA interfacing?
The most telling flaw in the strategy, for me, was that you could find entire racks of books on .Net.
But absolutely none that explained the basic wire
protocols used. They were all "How to Program a .Net application inside one box using language Y".
When I'm designing a system, the language used on each box is the last detail that I consider. I want to understand the interactions of the remote systems, how dependent they are on each other, how they evolve seperately, how the failure of one will affect the others, etc.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Interesting)
If you ignore the marketing noise, though, it is itself a cohesive strategy, but it's quite a wide-ranging thing and it's hard to get the right perspective on it. The problem is that you probably started looking too early. The first round of books were all written based on the betas (I reviewed many of them for various publishers), and they were all targeted at teaching the world the basics of .NET.
There are now many books that explain the guts in great detail.
To continue with your specific example, there are MANY projects which support or are working to implement CORBA remoting for .NET. A simple Google search for ".NET CORBA remoting" yielded tons of results.
Microsoft marketing is Microsoft's own worst enemy...
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that this has been a problem whenever MS introduces a new technology (COM, COM+, ActiveX). I can find plenty of people using these terms, but no one can give me a two or three sentence summary of what they are. Unfortunately, it seems like
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Informative)
* the
* The
* Web services: Really just the first application of the first two, but Microsoft is plugging this SOAP-based stuff like the second coming. I somehow don't see it replacing RPC for communication with system services, but there it is.
What .Net REALLY is (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is simply taking what they already have and making some changes in the way these components work together and within the context of the internet. The end result should be a computing experience that is fairly smooth to the end user and provides a lot of what's already out there but with different names and faces. This is why they claim to "innovate". Innovation is taking existing "stuff" and using it in new ways. That's not exactly what
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:3, Informative)
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Insightful)
On a point-by-point comparison, .Net frequently is superior to Java. It falls short on the fundamental
points you raise: interoperability, and more importantly
seperability. Using Java you know exactly which technologies you are embracing, and which you
are leaving out. Java/XML, Java/RMI, Java/Corba...
It's all your decision.
The other feature that .Net has is superior native execution,
it was designed to be translated to native code. The .net
virtual machine is better defined than the JVM is. But I
agree that on whole, the tradeoff is not worthwhile.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be interested in some benchmarks. My experience in fiddling with some numerically-intensive code is that Sun JVM 1.4.1 is about 4 times faster than a Dotnet release of 18 months ago. I haven't tried a more recent version.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is that Win32 is a steaming cowpat of an API. This is rammed through my head time and time again whenever I am forced to use it. It has some of the most braindamaged behaviours in the world - it's so bad that practically nobody uses it in fact. It's kind of sad, but it's not really possible to write Windows programs without a (usually expensive) IDE and wrapper library to help you.
Well, .NET is mostly just Microsoft creating yet another wrapper, albiet one that doesn't suck quite as much as their previous attempts did. That's just as well, perhaps one day the sheer hell of Win32 will be banished forever, much the same way that nobody pokes the BIOS anymore to print stuff to the screen. To be honest, I think that'll happen more because of Linux than .NET replacing Win32 entirely, but only time will tell.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess which came first?
nah... (Score:5, Funny)
nah, it's time Microsoft to move over...
Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Insightful)
And so it should - it's better than the alternatives which preceded it. It's just important to divorce the .Net marketing cloud from the actual technology on the ground.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Insightful)
I will say though that I have recently been working on a project to allow a unix legacy system talk to a web service to do real time credit card authorizations from a COBOL application. Using GCC 3.3, libxml2, libxml++, and libwww to post to a web service, it appears to be transacting quite nicely. I can see a lot of legacy application adapters being developed in this manner in the future. Now if only some of the documentation of these libraries were better....
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one big problem with Microsoft. Each time some VP gets all horny for an idea, it seems whatever preceded that idea becomes somehow irrelevant from marketing and, eventually, support standpoints. I would bet there are many many millions of lines of commercial code out there tied by t
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Interesting)
- The way codebehind is implemented, and the ASP.NET page lifecycle
- Custom controls
- Properties and indexers
- Collection and foreach
- Events and delegates
- app.config and web.config
- XCopy deployment
- Newsgroup support
What I don't like about
- Buggy implementation
- Crappy file I/O package
- DLL Versioning (Pain in the ass. Just deprecate!)
- Crappy API documentation
- A lot of default behaviors, little of which is intuitive, predictable, or documented
- The inability to use classes effectively for things they weren't designed to work for, even though they would be perfect for the job. This is largely due to shortsighted design and access constraints (private methods, un-settable properties, etc)
In other words, I love the CLR design and syntactical shortcuts and hate the class libraries and implementation. The feature set is very wide but not very deep. It's painfully obvious where they've set their focus (ASP.NET, ADO.NET) and where they haven't (file I/O, date/time manipulation, string formatting, etc). You develop like lightening until you reach a point where you want to refine it a bit and make it do something very specific, then you spend weeks trying to figure out what it's doing, why it's doing it that way, and how to work around the default behavior.
It's a good product for small projects, but if you're doing enterprise applications, you're better off implementing a lot of this stuff yourself. A good example are typed DataSets...they manage rowstate and updates and such, which saves a lot of time in the short term, but a lot of the time you want much finer control and a looser coupling between business objects and the data schema. Unfortunately, you can't touch the rowstate directly, which leads to some pretty interesting (and ugly) solutions.
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Insightful)
MS claim that
Currently MS makes the bulk of their money from the OS and Office. If they truely made
So basically I fail to see how MS could inplement a businees plant such that
Again, MS makes (prints???) money by selling OSs and Office (everything else is just a rounding error). You can be damn sure they're not going to do anything to threaten that cash cow. The interesting thing will be how MS ties
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Insightful)
MS claim that
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:3, Insightful)
From Microsoft! Because there have been better alternatives on Windows for a long time--both in terms of MUCH more flexible and expressive frameworks for C/C++, and in terms of different programming languages. But as far as Microsoft products for developing for Windows are concerned, yes,
It's all about the Pentiums (Score:5, Interesting)
The true reason behind the
When the 32 to 64 bit switch starts, the
Combine that with the fact that the Windows (NT/XP) kernel already supports multiple architectures, win32, posix and os/2 are the 3 common ones. I'm willing to bet that
It's not in-line compiling that's slow (Score:3, Informative)
If you are interesting in VM design you might enjoy this light read
The design of the Inferno virtual machine [vitanuova.com]
Phil Winterbottom Rob Pike Bell Labs,
Lucent Technologies {philw,rob}@plan9.bell-labs.com
NOTE: Originally appeared in IEEE Compcon 97 Proceedings, 1997.
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Interesting)
Far too much, in most cases.
In most cases, the CLR out-performs native Win32 because of better heap management, caching, and other little things here and there.
Said heap management, caching, etc. couldn't have been implemented in a pre-compiled language?!? Sure.
And there will be cross-platform compatibility once linux developers finish Mono.
So long as Microsoft sees fit not to exercise it's massive patent portfolio. I'd sure bet my business on Microsoft playing nice...not.
If anything that runs on a VM is slow - it's Java. It has to JIT everything before running it while the CLR JITs on demand and it even does that faster!
That would depend on which Java implementation you're talking about. There are fully pre-compiled Java systems available, however the VM based versions are very competitive. They are certainly neck and neck with the CLR...and are available on many platforms, now. Even enterprise class platforms. :-)
Java has tremendous momentum - which .Not has largely failed to affect.
Re:Not all your base belongs to us (Score:5, Funny)
chown -R us ~your/*base*
Sorry, but I think that you may have meant by your sig:
find ~your -name '*base*' | xargs chown us
The problem with your sig is that you only change the ownership of the base immediately below ~/your home directory, not all your base in directories more than one level below. The problem is that the shell will only expand the *base* in the home directory.
I hope you can further develop your base chowning skills further, so that all of it belongs to us.
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:3, Funny)
Heh. Dr Pepper tastes funny after going through your nose. Yuck.
New MS project announced! (Score:5, Funny)
It's called "Microsoft Passport"! I thought it sounded familiar but when I asked, they waved their hands at me and said "This project is new..." so it has to be! Can you imagine the advantages? Logging into hotmail automagically using MS Passport, using Passport as some sort of all-round login system... Heck, you can even use MS Passport as an instant messenging system! Wow!
Yesterday's news (Score:3, Interesting)
Time to move on? (Score:4, Funny)
NO tolerance for standards wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, so he and everybody else is sitting back and waiting for a clear winner with mature functionality to materialize.
In other words, he's saying "Screw
Re:NO tolerance for standards wars (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, some of the basic tutorials that came with the .NET beta (and probably with the release version, I never got around to looking at them again) showed you how to do this. A local binary component communications channel was transparently switchable to an HTTP-based protocol using policies which were controllable by an administrator... re-programming and re-compiling not required.
Fight all the standards wars you want, then just plug in the winner and get back to work.
What? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm convinced (Score:5, Funny)
OK, AC, you have me convinced with your insightful argument.
I use
whats to see? (Score:3, Funny)
move along...nothing to see here.....
It takes insight to notice these things take time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of .NET was puffery, to be sure (I read a piece on MSDN more or less admitting this), but that's largely because it was a working title given to a number of next-generation technologies that may or may not pan out, many of which haven't been released. You can't really consider C# or Hailstorm to have been around and competing for three years, can you?
Re:It takes insight to notice these things take ti (Score:5, Funny)
With Microsoft, yes, we can. Anyway, I was suprised to read that it's been three years already. This means we're due for
fun with fud. (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise for you "java" programmers out there who in actuality have only ever compiled one applet, and it was a recompilation of a decompiled shareware scroller that you removed the copyright notice from. Well done. On the other hand, if you've solid experience developing beans, rmi and other such projects, we also welcome your comments.
The rest of you shut up and learn.
Rant over.
- Oisin
Hyperlinking frenzy (Score:5, Funny)
I am all for html [w3.org] hyperlinks but I think I can find Eweek's website [eweek.com], as well as microsoft's [microsoft.com] website and its dot net [microsoft.com] section, especially after three years.
Of course I know, I wouldn't be bothered if I didn't try to read the article [eweek.com]. Who reads the articles on slashdot [slashdot.org] anyways?
What about Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for Lindows (and SCO), I think most linux distributors are quite realistic. Can you provide urls to back your claim?
all about the Benjamins (Score:5, Insightful)
that is the only reason I could see why
I'm not saying it is a useless bit of technology, I'm just personally partial to using any number of existing technologies that do the same thing and are cheaper to implement.
my current employer is retarded when it comes to computers and they paid someone to do a very basic web project in "dot net" because there was a general misunderstanding in the difference between the domain and the programming structures.
In the end it cost them a ton and now it is costing them more to maintain. I am trying to get them to port it all over to a much lighter system (php on linux or freebsd), but they are currently not interested.
's GOOD (Score:3, Insightful)
.Net a complete success (Score:5, Insightful)
.Net (Score:5, Funny)
Question (Score:5, Funny)
Has anybody worked out what it is yet?
Re:Question (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Question (Score:5, Funny)
The result of a bug in Word. It was supposed to be .NOT but Word autocorrected it and nobody noticed.
Re:Question (Score:4, Interesting)
.NET was a success, Microsoft-style (Score:3, Interesting)
This is hardly a new strategy for Microsoft. And in the .NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.
Re: .NET was a success, Microsoft-style (Score:3, Interesting)
> By announcing .NET as vaporware, Microsoft prevented any other vendors from doing anything similar. Not only that, but because ".NET" was going to be The Next Big Thing, they prevented other software houses from making any sales of existing working software while everyone waited for .NET to come along.
.NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.
.net was launched at the height of the .craze to prevent people from swit
> This is hardly a new strategy for Microsoft. And in the
Yep. In particular,
Speaking for myself (Score:5, Insightful)
From that perspective, ASP.NET just totally rocks my world. I can debug more easily. Performance is better. It encourages good architectural practices. And my productivity has gone through the roof - I haven't done any formal tests but based on personal experience I'd say I can develop at *least* 30% faster with ASP.NET compared to any other platform, possibly more. The difference is most pronounced in more complex systems where it really shines. For less than, say, a thousand lines of code it probably doesn't save as much time, but I rarely work on that anyway.
So, maybe
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:5, Funny)
I absolutely agree. Since discovering
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO the biggest thing in ASP.NET that leaves PHP for dust is the separation of code from layout. The other big one (and closely related) is easy componentisation. These two make life so much easier, and speak to much of the architectural niceties I mentioned in my original post. Not only can it be done, but it's easy to do and the flow *encourages* you to do it. I love a tool that makes it easy for me to do things the right way.
I do agree ASP.NET has a steeper learning curve than PHP (or any of the others listed, with the possible exception of JSP). Based on my experience, it's a price well worth paying.
For a small project, PHP would usually be my first choice, but anything medium to large, IMHO, ASP.NET is just miles better. Not trying to start a religous war as I do respect PHP, but I thought this was interesting, a comment from a respected member of the PHP community: http://www.edwardbear.org/blog/archives/000189.ht
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? There are multiple ways to do this, at the simplest level you throw a number of controls on the screen, possibly grouped with panels, and then change the Visible tag accordingly to display the one you want.
On a more complex level, you can create a number of controls which all inherit from a base class, and then instantiate the one you need into the main page. I've been working with the Dotnetnuke framework, and this is the entire basis of how it operates, as custom controls inherit from PortalModuleControl and are loaded dynamically at runtime according to database criteria for the page.
We gave 3 others a chance at it, two of them full time and true Microserfs.
Microserf? What is this, a contest to see who can act most like a child?
Since then I've tried other things and come to the same conclusion.
I guess it's nice that you came to a conclusion, it's just unfortunate that you are trying to extend your technical incompetence onto others.
ASP.NET has rocked my world as well, and I am barely even scratching the surface of functionality.
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:4, Informative)
The main problem I have with PHP is that it's not OO. Objects are syntactic sugar for grouping functions, but objects are by default copied by value, and worse yet, always compared by value, not by identity (so when $a === $b at one point, it might not later, even with the same objects, because they got the implementation so wrong). PHP5 is supposed to fix that, though things like its error handling still leave much to be desired (try eval'ing code with a syntax error -- your script will die, and you can NOT stop it. sort of defeats the purpose of eval, don't it?)
But that's all off the topic of
.NET = Windows API 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
That statement is a laughable sham, and I am sure M$ is glad you brought it up. Windows controls the hardware, and not the other way around. It has been this way for a long time - Windows killed Alpha, for example.
I wonder if Redhat and Sun's attempt to open source java [linuxtoday.com] will have any impact on this emerging battlefield??
If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple hadn't invented multi-media for micro-computers would Microsoft have it's own implementation?
Microsoft haven't done any (apart from Word for Mac, then later Windows) inventing of their own, and what they have done, has always been a poor copy!
Re:If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist? (Score:3, Insightful)
They must be doing SOMETHING right (Score:5, Insightful)
So...it may not DO anything just yet, but in terms of stalling development on other platforms and continuing to put MS in the news, I'd say it's a success.
I think you've got part of it (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I think you're onto something here. By pushing
I think they got the best of both worlds - a decent product they paired with FUD. That's a pretty tough combination.
In my Experience . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, recently (last year) I've seen a real explosion in
As a developer who has worked in a variety of languages, OVERALL,
Do I think
Will Microsoft give up on
.NET Proof Of Concept (Score:5, Funny)
.net web services (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft did a bad job marketing .net. First it was web services, then came SQL.net and Windows.net. Even now article like the quoted eweek one talk about .net as it it's simply web services. Add to this the weenies that talk about passport as if it's the be all and end all of .net.
So what have they delivered for the developer? (what follows is my opinion, as someone who has used it and is still using it)
Well there's Visual Studio, an excellent IDE for those that use IDEs.
There's C#, VB.Net and an architecture that has allow Python.net, Perl.net, Fortran.net, Cobol.net and others. The multitude of languages comes into its own when you realise that objects written in one language are easily used in every other language, so you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java.
There's the .net framework, an nice OO library which is, of course, available to any .net language.
There's ASP.net which makes development of event driven sites a hell of a lot easier than embedded your own hidden frames and attaching page loads of those frames as javascript events trigger.
There's WinForms, yet another forms interface, but as it's usuable in any language there is no more bodged MFC.
Of course you do have web services, easy SOAP libraries, really nice XML support, remoting and other funky stuff.
Should MS give up? Hell no, they've produced a wonderful environment for developing for windows. Developing more than web services.
I don't think you can comment on .net unless you've used it. Journalists need not apply, nor should MS marketing people :)
Heck no they shouldn't be moving on.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some compelling advantages to
I figure we should start seeing real concrete examples of the advantages of
Don't believe me?
USB.
Or even better, how about Win32? We *still* have at least two industry-specific Win16 apps that are under a current maintenance contract. Hell, most of the non-MSOffice Win16 crap was just replaced around four years ago with the Y2K upgrades, so we're still in the process of depreciating it!
All of MS's apps will be
Microsoft Marketing Machine (Score:3, Interesting)
The same applies to
Development good, marketing bad (Score:5, Interesting)
The only problem I see is MS's marketing strategy of attaching ".NET" to everything. This just confused the term. There really was no reason to call "Windows 2003 Server" "Windows
Whatever the case,
From what I've read here, most of the objections fall into two categories:
- I don't know what
.NET is.
- I don't like Microsoft as a company
On the first, if you limit the scope toOn the second, if this is your sole reason, you're being illogical. That would be like brushing off a good idea from a fellow developer because you didn't like his office.
.NET is hurting development (Score:5, Interesting)
VS.net 2003, that's a different story. It does all the things I want to do in a C++ compiler, but apart from the cost, what do you suppose is keeping the bosses from approving it? That's right:
So here I am, about to go back to a compiler that has no partial template specialization, a version of STL that I have to patch *by* *hand*, and if I want to look something up? Well, I've got my msdn help files from October 2001 to explain it to me, because that was the last version that integrated with VS6.
By pushing
Just my $0.02
Three years?! (Score:3, Interesting)
.NET a definite upgrade, good competition for Java (Score:5, Insightful)
And I don't agree
The best thing
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would
A few weeks uptime is nothing to brag about [netcraft.com].
As for total cost of ownership, it's always a case of your mileage will vary, it depends on where your staff has most skills. Personally I consider maintaining unix systems a lot easier and a lot less effort so that would cut down the TCO in that case. Get a bunch of McSE's and the results would be different, as would getting someone with an equal balanced knowledge in windows and unix.
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Albeit, a very good troll in that you ALMOST had me going until I read point 4. Upon rereading your other points:
1) 'Single-source logons' are a function of AD/Kerberos under 2000/2003. In a corporate environment, they give you all the benefits you're claiming that
2) How does this have anything to do with
3) Since the various
4) My windows 2000 servers at work usually only get a reboot when someone installs a hotfix. Since the patch lifecycle is test->uat->production, we have ample warning for this. Uptime, on average, is around 5-6 months. These machines are everything from AD controllers supporting thousands of users, to RDP/MS TS boxes with 50-odd users each.
5) correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't
I'm no Windows apologist (check my posting history,) but surely your argument is bunk
IHBT. IHL. HAND.
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you don't have AS400s, Legacy applications or Unix then ?
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
All their apps ? Or just the PIM ones in Outlook and the new development. Is that offsite access transactionally secure (i.e. not using Web Services)
3) Ping times have halved
This o
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:3, Informative)
Troll explained (Score:5, Informative)
3 is highly dubious. What's the connection between SOAP, virtual machines, and ping times?
5 is pure Microsoft marketing--look at their ads. Fact is, time after time independent analysis shows that TCO is lower for non-Microsoft solutions, both closed and open source.
Re:So much... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So much... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here at the lab for example we run a lot of mission critical syatems written in Java. Although these systems are ultra reliable they are slow and as such we are severely hampered by the hardware we can afford.
A few months ago we got a
If someone would port
Re:So much... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So much... (Score:4, Insightful)
The main problem with Office and Exchange is that they also tie you to a specific OS. Yet they seem to have done rather well.
I'm sure .Net has many failings, but only being tied to one OS' is probably not the vast majority of companies lists. There are plenty of places out there that are happily MS-centric.
Re:It can do most of what they say... (Score:4, Funny)
I am a software engineer and have written apps in Java, VB, and PERL. I have a friend who has been an M$ developer for about 5 years, and just called me a month or 2 ago to let me know that there is this thing called "design patterns" ... just for .Net. There is some M$ website that apparently broke the lid open on the concept of patterns this year (don't know URL). Of course, so did Christopher Alexander in the late 70's, and over 100 others since then... but M$ didn't endorse them until this year. My friend is cool and all, but the general software engineering ignorance was staggering.
Re:It can do most of what they say... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how many times I've seen this single point refutued, but your not tied to a single language to use the the JVM. Want proof, here you go [tu-berlin.de]. That's COBOL to Eifel with all the good bits in the middle.
The question is, what do you mean by "Java". There is the programming language "Java". There is the Java Virtual Machine. There is the set of standar
Re:It can do most of what they say... (Score:3, Interesting)
JVM language "flexibility" was added after the fact, and it often introduces some fairly ugly things to existing languages (not that .NET compliance won't).
Most people don't understand that the .NET intermediate langage (IL, which is what .NET programs compile into unless you use the
Re:they have ZERO chance (Score:4, Informative)
Re:From "Great" to old ideas (Score:4, Interesting)
And finally... "ASP.NET is lauging out loud"? What the hell does that even mean? I personally don't like ASP.NET, but at least it's far more consistent than PHP is or probably will ever be.
Return to class, you obviously have some catching-up to do.
Re:From "Great" to old ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
OK. Boxing, Typesafe Enums,
When Java was first released, umpty squat years ago, it introduced a lot of good concepts to the wider programming community (yeah yeah, smalltalk blah blah blah). The good news is, the language is adapting and evolving based on a community input process, and real world feedback. There are some things that maybe should or could have been done in different ways, but all in all, I keep comming back.
Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just Slashdot getting its weekly naysaying in.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
ahhh, Linux. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems....
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
MS knows it's a dog. It's as simple as that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:J2EE (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one company with the one technology, and three companies plus "etc." with the other. Wouldn't it make more sense for Microsoft to drop