I also must comment on your comment about the Microsoft documentation. One of the things I've hated about using Tomcat is the horrible documentation. IMHO bad documentation is very typical of open source projects and if you think about the open source mantra, it makes sense, doesn't it?

Consider this: An open source project is staffed by volunteers. They're not paid for their time. As a result, they're only going to work on those aspects of the project they find fun and interesting to work on. As a software developer, I can tell you that very few programmers I've known find writing documentation "fun and interesting". The result is, as we see in Tomcat, documentation that is incomplete, inconsistent and very piecemeal.

The poor documentation is just one problem with the open source philosophy. There are other, more serious problems that I won't go into here.

Now let's consider Microsoft, or any software company that pays its people. First of all, Microsoft has (I would assume) professional technical writers. That fact alone will mean their documentation is more likely to be better than that of an open source project. Second, when a programmer at Microsoft writes documentation he is probably doing so because of it's part of the job, just like writing code. To *not* write good documentation would probably affect Microsoft programmers' performance reviews and financial compensation. Since open source programmers don't have to worry about performance reviews or financial compensation, why should they bother writing that boring documentation when they can be writing code instead?

--
Tony LaPaso


----- Original Message ----- From: "David Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: From Java to C#, ASP.NET [Off Topic]


Most of the observations I've seen in this thread are based on
Microsoft's marketing.  Something that should be taken with more than
just a grain of salt.  Just look at what they did at their own
anti-trust trial here in the US a couple of years ago when they
purposely sabbotaged comparison tests of Windows with and without IE.
They were under oath at the time!

I will say I have used their products to develop solutions in the past and it's ... well ... interesting. The stuff works well when you know
how to use it.  Unfortunately I found their docs no where near the
quality of Tomcat or Java which prolonged development on something that
should have been extremely simple.  Also the whole C#/aspx design is
centered around events just like Windows itself which I find just a
little disconcerting.  Not a problem if you're already familiar with
programming in Access.  I would prefer a cleaner, more visible flow.

Lastly, and this is specific to the PetStore demo below, I've never seen
a conversion that has ever gotten it right from the start.  It'll be
guaranteed converting Java to .Net will be suboptimal at best
considering the paradigm differences in processing structure.  Your
almost better off starting over again recoding the whole thing in .Net
using your existing Java code as a reference model.

In the end, I think comparing Java servlets to .Net is like comparing
apples to tomatoes.  They're both fruit, but that's where the
similarities end.

--David

ZedroS Schwart wrote:

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]










---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to