Java v.s. C#
-
You seem to have traumatic experiences with java :P "Every rule in a world of bits and bytes can be bend or eventually be broken"
Yes.. it slows me down, drags me down, making it hard for me to breathe. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
My question is; WHEN WILL JAVA JUST ROLL OVER AND DIE, AND GET THE H*LL OUT OF MY LIFE!??! :~ :mad::~ I feel better now. :) -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Sorry to bust your bubble....BlueJ sucks :((. I suppose it has it's uses if this is your first in depth look into object orientated architecture...but really -- it sucks in terms of "Java". The only thing you can possibly take away from BlueJ is the CONCEPT of object orientated. But if you really want to learn Java itself, I suggest looking elsewhere.... Aubrey
Been using it for 10mins and figured that out.
website // Project : AmmoITX //profile Another Post by NnamdiOnyeyiri
-
No this is not a discussion whether java or C# is better. But just a simple fact I discovered today: I made a simple library program in C# with a one book per user principle. And I made exactly the same application in Java. The C# application runs on Windows XP Pro SP2 and the Java application on a Blade 100 desktop. Well, the diffirence between Java and C# was noticable. Java was approx. 70% slower than C#. Hurray for C# if you ask me. I don't know, but the applications were not bigger than 16k each. So that's what I call light weight, but the Java UI was not responsive at all. The startup time of the Java was longer, the response time when clicking on a button was longer, the response time when coming back to the main menu of the application from a random dialog was longer. Everything was slower :(. But again, that's just my test case and I won't start a discussion about Java v.s. C#. Because other people have different experiences and maybe the computers were just too slow to even run Java. "Every rule in a world of bits and bytes can be bend or eventually be broken"
Java is gay. Any Java UI is immediatly and obviously a Java UI, and not just because it is always slow. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Quitcher whinin'. Why, when I was your age, neither Java nor C# had been invented yet! We were lucky to get C++. My high school classes were either in straight C or Pascal. :doh: It's the process of learning how procedural and object oriented coding works, not the language itself, that's important. And wait until you deal with a functional language like Scheme or Lisp.... or logical one like Prolog... :-O An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
-
Java is gay. Any Java UI is immediatly and obviously a Java UI, and not just because it is always slow. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Yeah, I have to learn Java as part of my degree too...start in october but they want me learning how to use BlueJ IDE before I get there.
website // Project : AmmoITX //profile Another Post by NnamdiOnyeyiri
When I took it in school I used JCreator[^], the IDE reminds me more of Visual Studio than any other free IDE I've seen. - Nick Parker
My Blog | My Articles -
Don't hate it... enjoy it.. You'll learn to appreciate things in C# more... like the fact that C# doesn't have checked exceptions (thank God.. I've always found that checked exceptions lead to lazy programmers .. i.e. "Just catch exception and throw it up the stack or just catch exception and eat it up")... and the fact that C# has properties, and attributes, etc. Ergh, those are the features that make me like Java *more* than C#. Checked exceptions at least let you know a function is going to throw something (although functions that have "throws Exception" are extremely annoying, I'll give you that... :mad: ) Properties are silly. They look like they were put into C# just to appease COM and VB programmers. One thing I hate about both, though, is the fact that the "finalize" method exists. It is completely useless in a garbage-collected environment since you don't know when - or if - it will ever get called. Why not just eliminate it and not even give the programmer the false impression that it actually does something useful. :confused: An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
Navin wrote: Properties are silly Have to disagree.. while the use of properties can incur a small overhead (i.e. it's another function call to set/get a property) they do allow code to look more elegant and more understandable IMHO. One thing I hate when looking at code are accessor and mutator methods strewn all over the place... Properties allow for an elegent way of implementing accessors and mutators.... I know that most of the time properties are just used to provide a public interface to a variable/field, which is propably overkill due to the small performance overhead, but I personally use them even for this as it just make the code easier to read for others :-) Navin wrote: although functions that have "throws Exception" are extremely annoying, I'll give you that... That's exactly why I don't like them. I've come across too much of this widely praised "open source" java software where programmers where just sloppy and just throw Exception instead of actually dealing with exceptions properly. Navin wrote: is the fact that the "finalize" method exists. I'm not 100% sure of the semantics of finalize in Java but I presume it's the same as in C#... the lack of deterministic finalisation is a pain but for the time being it's just a simple fact that needs to be dealt with in C#/Java. Cleaning up resources is easy enough though.. just provide a Dispose method and call it.. or better still... use the
using {}syntax so that way you can forget to call it. IMO having finalize is more useful than not having it because at least you know that it will be called when the object is GC'd. Regards, Brian Dela :-) http://www.briandela.com IE 6 required.
http://www.briandela.com/pictures Now with a pictures section :-D
http://www.briandela.com/rss/newsrss.xml RSS Feed -
SWT is the way to go. You will never, ever, achieve the performance of native widgets if you take an approach like Swing and emulate them. An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
Preaching to the converted here... I was just pointing out that Sun seem to hate SWT because it's not platform independent (you need different "arse-end-code" on different platforms) Regards, Brian Dela :-) http://www.briandela.com IE 6 required.
http://www.briandela.com/pictures Now with a pictures section :-D
http://www.briandela.com/rss/newsrss.xml RSS Feed -
Java is gay. Any Java UI is immediatly and obviously a Java UI, and not just because it is always slow. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Every time I see a SWING interface, I think "now there's a UI only a mother could love". Thanks, Simey