| Groups | Blog | Home |
dotnet general : .Net vs Java
After working extensively with .Net and Java, these are the differences I see: Java does not have Reflection.Emit But it does have Reflection. That's okay so far, because most programmers are too dumb to use Reflection.Emit. Visual Studio .net is the easiest way to create web services. Windows.Forms, while easy to create, are hopelessly behind other toolkits such as Swing and Gtk.
[quoted text, click to view]
Moonraker wrote: > > After working extensively with .Net and Java, these are the differences I > see: > > Java does not have Reflection.Emit > But it does have Reflection. > > That's okay so far, because most programmers are too dumb to use > Reflection.Emit. > > Visual Studio .net is the easiest way to create web services. > > Windows.Forms, while easy to create, are hopelessly behind other toolkits > such as Swing and Gtk. Have you tried Mono as replacement for .net? Some of the 200 odd liveCDs that boot from CD and run without having to install come with mono already working. http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php All free and done up techies with open source source code to configure and modify to heart's content.
[quoted text, click to view]
7 wrote: [quoted text, click to view] > Have you tried Mono as replacement for .net? Yes, I am a huge fan of mono! [quoted text, click to view] > Some of the 200 odd liveCDs that boot from CD > and run without having to install come with mono already working. > http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php > All free and done up techies with open source source code > to configure and modify to heart's content. I get mine straight from the source: Suse. There is a Red Carpet channel so it can be easily updated. Lately I've been fascinated with developing UIs in Glade -- an XML based structure for defining forms that can operate with mono/c#. It's obviously 2 years ahead of AXML.
[quoted text, click to view]
>Yes, I am a huge fan of mono! Probably this answers your question, it's hard to argue with big/huge fan.But moving from c# (I used it from since first beta) to java I don't see any problems with java. Some things are better in java, another in .net - they both are pretty big NUT. Anyway, some beeer would help to solve it. [quoted text, click to view] "Moonraker" <roger@moore.bond.007> wrote in message news:YpgBd.13449$RH4.6098@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > After working extensively with .Net and Java, these are the differences I > see: > > Java does not have Reflection.Emit > But it does have Reflection. > > That's okay so far, because most programmers are too dumb to use > Reflection.Emit. > > Visual Studio .net is the easiest way to create web services. > > Windows.Forms, while easy to create, are hopelessly behind other toolkits > such as Swing and Gtk. > > > >
[quoted text, click to view]
Ivar wrote: >>Yes, I am a huge fan of mono! > Probably this answers your question, it's hard to argue with big/huge fan. > But moving from c# (I used it from since first beta) to java I don't see > any problems with java. > Some things are better in java, another in .net - they both are pretty big > NUT. I totally agree. I feel that as a professional programmer, I must work in both environments to be of value. [quoted text, click to view] >
> Anyway, some beeer would help to solve it. > > "Moonraker" <roger@moore.bond.007> wrote in message > news:YpgBd.13449$RH4.6098@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> After working extensively with .Net and Java, these are the differences I >> see: >> >> Java does not have Reflection.Emit >> But it does have Reflection. >> >> That's okay so far, because most programmers are too dumb to use >> Reflection.Emit. >> >> Visual Studio .net is the easiest way to create web services. >> >> Windows.Forms, while easy to create, are hopelessly behind other toolkits >> such as Swing and Gtk. >> >> >> >>
[quoted text, click to view] "Moonraker" <roger@moore.bond.007> wrote in message news:YpgBd.13449$RH4.6098@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > After working extensively with .Net and Java, these are the differences I > see: > > Java does not have Reflection.Emit > But it does have Reflection. > > That's okay so far, because most programmers are too dumb to use > Reflection.Emit. > > Visual Studio .net is the easiest way to create web services. > > Windows.Forms, while easy to create, are hopelessly behind other toolkits > such as Swing and Gtk. In what way, generally, is that behind? I was told Swing is something of a "black art" - truth to that?
[quoted text, click to view]
>> I think Reflection.Emit is the most brilliant part of .net > > In my view it's one of those things which is a bit of a pain to use, > and is only very, very rarely useful. When it *is* useful, it's a > godsend, but it's more "cool" than useful, IMO. > Hopefully dynamic methods will start to even that out a little, ;).
[quoted text, click to view] "Moonraker" <roger@moore.bond.007> wrote in message news:YpgBd.13449$RH4.6098@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > After working extensively with .Net and Java, these are the differences I > see: > > Java does not have Reflection.Emit > But it does have Reflection. > > That's okay so far, because most programmers are too dumb to use > Reflection.Emit. There are Java equivalents of Reflection.Emit, e.g. Bcel (http://jakarta.apache.org/bcel/) I'd certainly avoid both of them unless I had no plausible alternatives. (I have had to use Refelction.Emit to create a dynamic .NET assembly. Ugh.)
[quoted text, click to view]
Mike Schilling wrote: \ [quoted text, click to view] > I'd certainly avoid both of them unless I had no plausible alternatives. > (I > have had to use Refelction.Emit to create a dynamic .NET assembly. Ugh.) Why ugh? I think Reflection.Emit is the most brilliant part of .net -- "You see, in this world there are two types of people, my friend: those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
[quoted text, click to view]
Live And Let Die <roger@moore.bond.007> wrote: > > I'd certainly avoid both of them unless I had no plausible alternatives. > > (I > > have had to use Refelction.Emit to create a dynamic .NET assembly. Ugh.) > > Why ugh? > > I think Reflection.Emit is the most brilliant part of .net In my view it's one of those things which is a bit of a pain to use, and is only very, very rarely useful. When it *is* useful, it's a godsend, but it's more "cool" than useful, IMO. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
[quoted text, click to view]
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote: > In my view it's one of those things which is a bit of a pain to use, > and is only very, very rarely useful. When it *is* useful, it's a > godsend, but it's more "cool" than useful, IMO. I think you are defining /useful/ only in terms of what you already do. And there I agree with you. However, in terms of what could be done, that's never been done before... [quoted text, click to view] > -- "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig.
[quoted text, click to view]
Octopussy <bad.007@films> wrote: > Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote: > > > In my view it's one of those things which is a bit of a pain to use, > > and is only very, very rarely useful. When it *is* useful, it's a > > godsend, but it's more "cool" than useful, IMO. > > I think you are defining /useful/ only in terms of what you already do. Not really. I'm defining it in terms of what I *want* to do. I rarely want to do anything which needs on-the-fly code generation. Things like ASP.NET do, and that's fine - but I'll leave the code generation to MS. [quoted text, click to view] > And there I agree with you. > > However, in terms of what could be done, that's never been done before... But does it *need* to be done? -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
[quoted text, click to view]
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote: [quoted text, click to view] > Not really. I'm defining it in terms of what I *want* to do. I rarely > want to do anything which needs on-the-fly code generation. Things like > ASP.NET do, and that's fine - but I'll leave the code generation to MS. That's crazy. For examply, I was thinking over the weekend, say I wanted to create a multiplayer game. And say I wanted to use all kinds of OO class structures to define the characters, their actions and so on... Well, now, how about making it more interesting, by allowing the behavior of the classes to change *on* *the* *fly* by using Reflection.Emit...you can modify the methods that define the game, as the game is played. -- "The Bush administration aims in its 2005 budget to cut by $1 billion the $18 billion fund that helps about 2 million Americans--generally the poor, elderly, and disabled--pay their rent." -Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/05/05_520.html
[quoted text, click to view]
Section 8 <roger@moore.bond.007> wrote: > > Not really. I'm defining it in terms of what I *want* to do. I rarely > > want to do anything which needs on-the-fly code generation. Things like > > ASP.NET do, and that's fine - but I'll leave the code generation to MS. > > That's crazy. > > For examply, I was thinking over the weekend, say I wanted to create > a multiplayer game. And say I wanted to use all kinds of OO class > structures to define the characters, their actions and so on... > > Well, now, how about making it more interesting, by allowing the > behavior of the classes to change *on* *the* *fly* by using > Reflection.Emit...you can modify the methods that define the game, as > the game is played. Do you think that would be particularly popular? People don't generally want to be writing programs while playing games - particularly not in real-time. (If there's no time pressure, they can just compile their code in a normal way, just like with the .NET ecosystem type game which was around a while ago.) Go ahead, write the game, and I'd be interested to see it - but that sounds more like a solution in search of a problem than a genuine need being met. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |