By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,665 Members | 1,586 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,665 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

.Net vs Java

P: n/a

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.


Nov 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
13 Replies


P: n/a
7
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.

Nov 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
7 wrote:

Have you tried Mono as replacement for .net?
Yes, I am a huge fan of mono!
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.

Nov 22 '05 #3

P: n/a
>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.

"Moonraker" <ro***@moore.bond.007> wrote in message
news:Yp******************@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.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.

Nov 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
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.


Anyway, some beeer would help to solve it.

"Moonraker" <ro***@moore.bond.007> wrote in message
news:Yp******************@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.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.


Nov 22 '05 #5

P: n/a

"Moonraker" <ro***@moore.bond.007> wrote in message
news:Yp******************@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.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?
Nov 22 '05 #6

P: n/a

"Moonraker" <ro***@moore.bond.007> wrote in message
news:Yp******************@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.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.)
Nov 22 '05 #7

P: n/a
Mike Schilling 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

--
"You see, in this world there are two types of people, my friend:
those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
-C. Eastwood, G,B&U
Nov 22 '05 #8

P: n/a
Live And Let Die <ro***@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 - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 22 '05 #9

P: n/a
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...


--
"You see, in this world there's two
kinds of people, my friend: Those
with loaded guns and those who dig.
You dig." C. Eastwood, G,B&U
Nov 22 '05 #10

P: n/a
>> 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, ;).
Nov 22 '05 #11

P: n/a
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.
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 - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 22 '05 #12

P: n/a
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] 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.
--
"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/dail...05/05_520.html

Nov 22 '05 #13

P: n/a
Section 8 <ro***@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 - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 22 '05 #14

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.