In bad mood and don't want to spoil the party, but:
-
I think the GC works just fine, from Java 1.2 anyway, but there are certain pitfalls to avoid when writing for a garbage collected environment and I have seen some gross examples of that in C# too... First: GC does NOT mean resource handling, I used over a week on my last contract cleansweeping a C# application for unreleased db connections. The silly thing would leak up to a hundred connections pr. second! I wrote a Java server once running on a HP-UX box, and I never found out how long it could run without getting restarted, because the app had to be stopped every week due to problems with external modules. As for performance on that one: Our resident C programmer insisted that it HAD to be a C app, because he couldn't believe that speed otherwise. But then again, it wasn't a GUI app. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
I'm not having trouble with any of my own applications... not big enough to ever be using 100MB... But eclipse, Tomcat... even the J2EE Application Deployer [Sun's own one] are ridiculous... really... When I used the J233 Application Deployer I had to more or less shut everything else down.. now if Sun can't get it right then, to me, it's all a bit messed up. jan larsen wrote: it wasn't a GUI app. Yep.. GUI seems to be a problem with Java*.. it still can run slowly with non-GUI apps [e.g. Tomcat] but a lot of non-GUI apps run fine. * Oh.. and Java GUI's look sh*te Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
I'm not having trouble with any of my own applications... not big enough to ever be using 100MB... But eclipse, Tomcat... even the J2EE Application Deployer [Sun's own one] are ridiculous... really... When I used the J233 Application Deployer I had to more or less shut everything else down.. now if Sun can't get it right then, to me, it's all a bit messed up. jan larsen wrote: it wasn't a GUI app. Yep.. GUI seems to be a problem with Java*.. it still can run slowly with non-GUI apps [e.g. Tomcat] but a lot of non-GUI apps run fine. * Oh.. and Java GUI's look sh*te Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote: * Oh.. and Java GUI's look sh*te I usually use native look and feel, so I can't really see the difference. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
In bad mood and don't want to spoil the party, but: Let me ask you guys: Am I the only one here that recently feel like all that .NET hype is just and only the hype?... At least on desktop site?... Am I alone on that? As I see obvious advantages of using CLR on server site, I personally completely missunderstand and disagree with the concept on the client: Yes sure, language is important, but real serious client products evolving usually not in one night, but growing slowly and utilizing OS specifics, becoming at some point contrary to OOP and still fulfilling the task. Could anybody help me finding out recent CLR implementations of something more complicated then just UserControl and/or Tool for software development. Something like small Excel and/or ActiveX(or WinForm) TestContainer and etc... Maybe some application resolving some real business problems... I'm talking about DeskTop (Client site) only solution. Thank you.
Don't ask so many questions. I've been programming over-hyped technologies for nearly 20 years and I've never gone hungry. "More capitalism, please..."
-
Chris Maunder wrote: NET is truly fun to work in You mean just like upgrading a VS 2K2 C# project to 2K3 just to figure out the code doesn't compile any more. Come on Christ. As long as I see people talking personal projects, I believe .NET is fun. As soon as we speak real world stuff, VS.NET is the crappiest thing I have seen. The rate of breaking changes is so high that .NET 2.0 due in 2004 will again break project files, source code, behaviors, etc. The ROI is halfed from published expectations IMHO.
I said "fun", I didn't say "hassle free", "fully backwards compatible" or "a cure for cancer" ;) I'm fully aware there are problems moving large projects to .NET, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy working in .NET. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
I said "fun", I didn't say "hassle free", "fully backwards compatible" or "a cure for cancer" ;) I'm fully aware there are problems moving large projects to .NET, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy working in .NET. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm fully aware there are problems moving large projects to .NET My point wasn't between unmanaged C++ ==> .NET, it was between various .NET releases (1.0, 1.1, 2.0) and the rate at which MS breaks the file formats and behaviors.
-
Chris Maunder wrote: NET is truly fun to work in You mean just like upgrading a VS 2K2 C# project to 2K3 just to figure out the code doesn't compile any more. Come on Christ. As long as I see people talking personal projects, I believe .NET is fun. As soon as we speak real world stuff, VS.NET is the crappiest thing I have seen. The rate of breaking changes is so high that .NET 2.0 due in 2004 will again break project files, source code, behaviors, etc. The ROI is halfed from published expectations IMHO.
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: As soon as we speak real world stuff, VS.NET is the crappiest thing I have seen. The rate of breaking changes is so high that .NET 2.0 due in 2004 will again break project files, source code, behaviors, etc. Have you ever seen the rate of breaking changes between Java versions? Now, that is funny! BTW, I don't care if there are breaking changes that make my applications better and more secure. I believe breaking changes are unavoidable as they're tied to evolution and improvement.
The nice thing about C++ is that only your friends can handle your private parts.
-
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm fully aware there are problems moving large projects to .NET My point wasn't between unmanaged C++ ==> .NET, it was between various .NET releases (1.0, 1.1, 2.0) and the rate at which MS breaks the file formats and behaviors.
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: was between various .NET releases (1.0, 1.1, 2.0) Do you have access to an alpha version of .NET version 2.0? I'm not aware of it's release out of Microsoft.
The nice thing about C++ is that only your friends can handle your private parts.
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: As soon as we speak real world stuff, VS.NET is the crappiest thing I have seen. The rate of breaking changes is so high that .NET 2.0 due in 2004 will again break project files, source code, behaviors, etc. Have you ever seen the rate of breaking changes between Java versions? Now, that is funny! BTW, I don't care if there are breaking changes that make my applications better and more secure. I believe breaking changes are unavoidable as they're tied to evolution and improvement.
The nice thing about C++ is that only your friends can handle your private parts.
Eddie Velasquez wrote: don't care if there are breaking changes that make my applications better and more secure. I believe breaking changes are unavoidable as they're tied to evolution and improvement. I don't buy this. Upgrading the source code is hardly part of the development cost allowed by your company. Actually, it's always assumed that compilers don't change. Although at my ocpany we have been using DevStudio 6.0 for a bunch of years, I foresee that the day we upgrade to 7.x we'll have a lot to pay in terms of unavoidable upgrade. On the other hand, in software companies you focus on your business value, not on the fact that the compiler has drastically changed.
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: was between various .NET releases (1.0, 1.1, 2.0) Do you have access to an alpha version of .NET version 2.0? I'm not aware of it's release out of Microsoft.
The nice thing about C++ is that only your friends can handle your private parts.
Eddie Velasquez wrote: Do you have access to an alpha version of .NET version 2.0? No. But there are a few papers and interviews about what's going on. From what I heard and read, it's significant and, as a result, MS is again going to break file formats, source code and behaviors.
-
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm fully aware there are problems moving large projects to .NET My point wasn't between unmanaged C++ ==> .NET, it was between various .NET releases (1.0, 1.1, 2.0) and the rate at which MS breaks the file formats and behaviors.
I'm told that the 1.0 to 1.1 project break was due to poor planning in the project format in 1.0, and that 1.1 fixes this so they won't break again. I'm in Redmond this week so I'll snoop around and see if I can get some details on whether 2.0 will break things. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
In bad mood and don't want to spoil the party, but: Let me ask you guys: Am I the only one here that recently feel like all that .NET hype is just and only the hype?... At least on desktop site?... Am I alone on that? As I see obvious advantages of using CLR on server site, I personally completely missunderstand and disagree with the concept on the client: Yes sure, language is important, but real serious client products evolving usually not in one night, but growing slowly and utilizing OS specifics, becoming at some point contrary to OOP and still fulfilling the task. Could anybody help me finding out recent CLR implementations of something more complicated then just UserControl and/or Tool for software development. Something like small Excel and/or ActiveX(or WinForm) TestContainer and etc... Maybe some application resolving some real business problems... I'm talking about DeskTop (Client site) only solution. Thank you.
And the worst part is that Microsoft developed another "darling" language to go with it. It was bad enough that the VB programmers got everything handed to them on a platter and the C++ programmers had to wait and jump through hoops. Now C++ takes another hit with the managed extensions which turn it into an abomination. Which of course is Microsoft's strategy to get you to switch to C# where it's easy again and it sort of looks like C++ if you never used much of the language. The need for a good library is clear. The standard library is Java's only saving feature. If C++ had as comprehensive of a standard library, Java would never have caught on IMHO. Tim