performance. (I'd argue that you'll get better reliability and scalability,
but that's a bit harder to prove).
Performance and integration come from a single vendor providing a single
integrated solution. It's well-known that the Microsoft Java VM was easily
the fastest Java VM for Windows, handily outperforming Java VMs from Sun,
IBM and others. This is hardly surprising. It was the fact that Microsoft
wanted tighter integration of their VM with Windows that resulted in: (1) a
lawsuit with Sun; (2) Microsoft developing the .NET Framework as an
alternative; and, (3) Microsoft dropping support for their Java VM (which is
what started this thread).
.NET will always outperform Java on Windows. There's no way that Sun or IBM,
as third-parties, can produce a virtual machine that outperforms Microsoft's
on Windows. For example, Windows 2003 was specifically tuned to run the .NET
Framework, which runs almost twice as fast on Windows 2003 as it does on
Windows 2000. You won't see any similar performance boost for Java when
going from Windows 2000 to Windows 2003.
The fact that .NET will provide better integration with Windows, and with
other Microsoft products, such as SQL Server, should be obvious without
further discussion. Do you really think a JDBC driver from DataDirect is
going to provide better integration and performance with SQL Server 2005
than ADO.NET?
So those are the trade-offs. You can maximize portability, or you can
maximize performance and integration. You can't have both. Some people with
prefer one, some people will prefer the other.
Vince Bonfanti
New Atlanta Communications, LLC
http://www.newatlanta.com
________________________________
From: Adrocknaphobia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: ms to no longer supporting msjvm
>Think about it: when deploying CFMX, you're relying first on Sun
for the
>Java VM, then on DataDirect for the JDBC drivers, and then on
JIntegra for
>COM support (if you need it), and only finally on Macromedia for
the CFMX
>application server. All of these are good companies with good
technology,
>but there are several layers of complexity here, none of which is
supported
>or endorsed by Microsoft.
I don't mean to burst your little BlueDragon pitch, but what about
the
problems that arise when you put all your eggs in one basket? I'd
rather rely on different companies for different parts of the
application, rather than just assume MS can do it better than anyone
else, which is rarely the case. I think the freedom to switch core
technologies like JVM and JDBCs as a positive thing.
What sort of benefits are thier in giving up the freedom to move
platmforms?
-Adam
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
