More .NET bashing by the Java crowd
-
http://www.javalobby.org/clr.html How technically accurate this is I don't know but it's worth a read. and if I see another article that uses a Lord of the Rings type title, then I'm going to scream. Michael :-)
-
http://www.javalobby.org/clr.html How technically accurate this is I don't know but it's worth a read. and if I see another article that uses a Lord of the Rings type title, then I'm going to scream. Michael :-)
Doesn't seem like .NET bashing by the Java crowd, or at least it seems to compare Java and C#/.NET fairly. (I didn't do a profound analysis though... I just woke up! ;))
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
-
http://www.javalobby.org/clr.html How technically accurate this is I don't know but it's worth a read. and if I see another article that uses a Lord of the Rings type title, then I'm going to scream. Michael :-)
The first paragraph was so full of drivil, I really wonder about the quality of the rest. The .NET platform is a huge step forward if compared to Microsoft’s previous SDKs. I wonder how many people who bitch about Win32 have ever tried to program in X-Windows. I have done both. They both have their good and bad points. Microsoft has clearly elected J2EE as Enemy #1 to be defeated. Comparisons to Java technology are already popping from the .NET marketing found in Microsoft(-sponsored) websites and publicity. This focus is very odd as Microsoft tried to completely ignore the existence of Java until recently (C# documents, for example, mention only C and C++ even though C# is a Java copycat with superficial changes). MS was doing a lot with Java until Sun forced them to stop. Has this guy been living under a rock? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
The first paragraph was so full of drivil, I really wonder about the quality of the rest. The .NET platform is a huge step forward if compared to Microsoft’s previous SDKs. I wonder how many people who bitch about Win32 have ever tried to program in X-Windows. I have done both. They both have their good and bad points. Microsoft has clearly elected J2EE as Enemy #1 to be defeated. Comparisons to Java technology are already popping from the .NET marketing found in Microsoft(-sponsored) websites and publicity. This focus is very odd as Microsoft tried to completely ignore the existence of Java until recently (C# documents, for example, mention only C and C++ even though C# is a Java copycat with superficial changes). MS was doing a lot with Java until Sun forced them to stop. Has this guy been living under a rock? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Tim Smith wrote: I wonder how many people who bitch about Win32 have ever tried to program in X-Windows. I have done both. They both have their good and bad points. Mm... UNIX libc, X11, Motif or Qt. Extremely simple and consistent API's. Win32 scares me at times. :)
-
Tim Smith wrote: I wonder how many people who bitch about Win32 have ever tried to program in X-Windows. I have done both. They both have their good and bad points. Mm... UNIX libc, X11, Motif or Qt. Extremely simple and consistent API's. Win32 scares me at times. :)
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Mm... UNIX libc, X11, Motif or Qt. Extremely simple and consistent API's LOLOL :-) When they [linuxies] talk about how stable Linux is, they mean the kernel and the shell. Their windowing systems are still buggy and slow. And development is a pain in the ass! With multiple beta and alpha versions that are not cross compatible with each other. Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Mm... UNIX libc, X11, Motif or Qt. Extremely simple and consistent API's LOLOL :-) When they [linuxies] talk about how stable Linux is, they mean the kernel and the shell. Their windowing systems are still buggy and slow. And development is a pain in the ass! With multiple beta and alpha versions that are not cross compatible with each other. Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: When they [linuxies] talk about how stable Linux is Hehe, I was serious though ;) libc has a very simple api indeed. And yet it is very powerful. Perhaps I/O (overlapping stuff for instance) is not as powerful as in the Win32 API, but you can compensate for that by buying third party software or write your own. X11 also has a very simple API - Xlib. X is just a windowing mechanism, it gives you no policy whatsoever. Xlib applications are pretty much identical to win32 where you write your own message pump (except for menus and controls such as buttons, those you'd have to implement yourself). Since it gives you no policy, you have the option to either implement the policy yourself or buy someone elses - this is where toolkits such as Motif and Qt comes into the picture. These two toolkits also have quite simple API's (well, I guess you could argue about Motif, but once you've got the hang of it, it's very simple). However, I don't belong in the linux crowd anyhow. I like BSD flavoured operating systems. Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Their windowing systems are still buggy and slow. I would beg to differ on this. X is not buggy at all - it's been around since you and I was nothing but toddlers! So it has had its share of testing and evolution. Slow? Well, it's not exactly made for extreme 3d gaming, but if you allow optimizations as direct rendering (i.e., bypassing the X network protocol), you're in par with windows speed I'd say. I didn't have any problems playing Quake [1, 2, 3] nor Soldier of Fortune when I had Linux installed some time ago [Yes, but that was before I got fed up with Linux ;)]. The buggy part you speak of is probably the window manager and desktop environments such as KDE and Gnome (and other smaller desktop environments). Personally, I use KDE 2.2.1 on my FreeBSD machine at home, and I find it quite stable. It hasn't crashed on me yet! And I'd say the API's are quite nice as well, but that depends on how fond you are of Qt (which is btw quite similar to COM dispinterfaces wrt events). Have a look at Qt for Windows which you can download from Trolltech and see for yourself. Quite a nice framework! Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: And development is a pain in the ass! I always thought that UNIX development is a good way to keep up with things. Yes, development is quite crude. You write makefiles, you use the shell, you use editors, you u
-
Tim Smith wrote: I wonder how many people who bitch about Win32 have ever tried to program in X-Windows. I have done both. They both have their good and bad points. Mm... UNIX libc, X11, Motif or Qt. Extremely simple and consistent API's. Win32 scares me at times. :)
-
The first paragraph was so full of drivil, I really wonder about the quality of the rest. The .NET platform is a huge step forward if compared to Microsoft’s previous SDKs. I wonder how many people who bitch about Win32 have ever tried to program in X-Windows. I have done both. They both have their good and bad points. Microsoft has clearly elected J2EE as Enemy #1 to be defeated. Comparisons to Java technology are already popping from the .NET marketing found in Microsoft(-sponsored) websites and publicity. This focus is very odd as Microsoft tried to completely ignore the existence of Java until recently (C# documents, for example, mention only C and C++ even though C# is a Java copycat with superficial changes). MS was doing a lot with Java until Sun forced them to stop. Has this guy been living under a rock? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Tim Smith wrote: The .NET platform is a huge step forward if compared to Microsoft’s previous SDKs. The intention doesn't matter: it is absolutely true! Tim Smith wrote: Microsoft has clearly elected J2EE as Enemy #1 to be defeated. This is true too! Tim Smith wrote: Comparisons to Java technology are already popping from the .NET marketing found in Microsoft(-sponsored) websites and publicity Nothing different from what Sun is doing. Tim Smith wrote: This focus is very odd as Microsoft tried to completely ignore the existence of Java until recently :confused: Tim Smith wrote: C# is a Java copycat with superficial changes Bullcrap. Isn't Java a C++ copycat with superficial changes? Or isn't Java really C++----?
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
-
If X11R5 has extremely simple and consistent APIs, then so does Win32. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Wrt windowing, yes Win32 is quite simple. But then again, both win32 and X are "old school windowing", thus they are quite alike. You get a handle to a window, and on that handle you can perform some operations (ADT abstraction basically). Win32 has also added the notion of controls. In X you have Xt or some other toolkit such as Qt taking care of that. The difference is that the interfaces are layered in UNIX, while in Windows they are aggregated. IMHO, layered interfaces are easier to comprehend; on one hand I can ignore everything but the top layer (Qt for instance) and on the other hand, I can take a dive into the unknown if I need to do something out of the ordinary. Win32 doesn't really let you "ignore" things so easily. It is very hard to see the forest because of all the trees. But if we compare libc and the counterpart in Win32, then the complexity of Win32 is overwhelming. Win32 is not very intuitive. An example is the CreateFile function. It does pretty much EVERYTHING, and then some. I still remember when I was looking for OpenFile(). I found a function, but it was obsolete, and was just there for backward compability. Naturally I backed down, and started to look for the alternative (no references to the alternative was mentioned). I searched through the docs for something like "open" in conjunction with "file", for about an hour :mad: before I found CreateFile. It turned out that when given the parameter (out of a billion or so), CreateFile behaves like a function you would call OpenFile. In UNIX libc you have open() and creat(). Simple! I could have agreed on making OpenFile() also be able to create a file, but the reverse is just mind boggling. Tim Smith wrote: X11R5 ps. It is possible to upgrade to X11R6 ;) ds.
-
http://www.javalobby.org/clr.html How technically accurate this is I don't know but it's worth a read. and if I see another article that uses a Lord of the Rings type title, then I'm going to scream. Michael :-)
Even if CLR’s level of language neutrality becomes important, this can be patched into the JVM without major effort. A surprisingly large number of issues can be fixed by specification alone (for example, how to construct enumerated types? classes can be used, but different approaches are possible). Others, like unsigned integral types, would require changes to the VM and bytecode specifications. Isn't stuff like this why people don't like stuff that isn't standardized? Making a sweeping change like this to the JVM is likely to break many programs correct? Don't get me wrong, I like having a set standard, but at times it just stifles innovation; just look at the monkey phuck of a syntax for MC++ :-P James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki "My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think." - Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull 1972
-
Wrt windowing, yes Win32 is quite simple. But then again, both win32 and X are "old school windowing", thus they are quite alike. You get a handle to a window, and on that handle you can perform some operations (ADT abstraction basically). Win32 has also added the notion of controls. In X you have Xt or some other toolkit such as Qt taking care of that. The difference is that the interfaces are layered in UNIX, while in Windows they are aggregated. IMHO, layered interfaces are easier to comprehend; on one hand I can ignore everything but the top layer (Qt for instance) and on the other hand, I can take a dive into the unknown if I need to do something out of the ordinary. Win32 doesn't really let you "ignore" things so easily. It is very hard to see the forest because of all the trees. But if we compare libc and the counterpart in Win32, then the complexity of Win32 is overwhelming. Win32 is not very intuitive. An example is the CreateFile function. It does pretty much EVERYTHING, and then some. I still remember when I was looking for OpenFile(). I found a function, but it was obsolete, and was just there for backward compability. Naturally I backed down, and started to look for the alternative (no references to the alternative was mentioned). I searched through the docs for something like "open" in conjunction with "file", for about an hour :mad: before I found CreateFile. It turned out that when given the parameter (out of a billion or so), CreateFile behaves like a function you would call OpenFile. In UNIX libc you have open() and creat(). Simple! I could have agreed on making OpenFile() also be able to create a file, but the reverse is just mind boggling. Tim Smith wrote: X11R5 ps. It is possible to upgrade to X11R6 ;) ds.
Yup, the _creat function was SUCH a good idea that it has been abandoned and considered obsolete. You don't even have an _fcreate, it is all handled by _fopen. The MS CRT source says it all.
int __cdecl _tcreat (
const _TSCHAR *path,
int pmode
)
{
/* creat is just the same as open... */
return _topen(path, _O_CREAT + _O_TRUNC + _O_RDWR, pmode);
}Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: When they [linuxies] talk about how stable Linux is Hehe, I was serious though ;) libc has a very simple api indeed. And yet it is very powerful. Perhaps I/O (overlapping stuff for instance) is not as powerful as in the Win32 API, but you can compensate for that by buying third party software or write your own. X11 also has a very simple API - Xlib. X is just a windowing mechanism, it gives you no policy whatsoever. Xlib applications are pretty much identical to win32 where you write your own message pump (except for menus and controls such as buttons, those you'd have to implement yourself). Since it gives you no policy, you have the option to either implement the policy yourself or buy someone elses - this is where toolkits such as Motif and Qt comes into the picture. These two toolkits also have quite simple API's (well, I guess you could argue about Motif, but once you've got the hang of it, it's very simple). However, I don't belong in the linux crowd anyhow. I like BSD flavoured operating systems. Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Their windowing systems are still buggy and slow. I would beg to differ on this. X is not buggy at all - it's been around since you and I was nothing but toddlers! So it has had its share of testing and evolution. Slow? Well, it's not exactly made for extreme 3d gaming, but if you allow optimizations as direct rendering (i.e., bypassing the X network protocol), you're in par with windows speed I'd say. I didn't have any problems playing Quake [1, 2, 3] nor Soldier of Fortune when I had Linux installed some time ago [Yes, but that was before I got fed up with Linux ;)]. The buggy part you speak of is probably the window manager and desktop environments such as KDE and Gnome (and other smaller desktop environments). Personally, I use KDE 2.2.1 on my FreeBSD machine at home, and I find it quite stable. It hasn't crashed on me yet! And I'd say the API's are quite nice as well, but that depends on how fond you are of Qt (which is btw quite similar to COM dispinterfaces wrt events). Have a look at Qt for Windows which you can download from Trolltech and see for yourself. Quite a nice framework! Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: And development is a pain in the ass! I always thought that UNIX development is a good way to keep up with things. Yes, development is quite crude. You write makefiles, you use the shell, you use editors, you u
Thanks for that very informative post Jorgen [I could not get the o with two dots on top of it] :-) Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
-
Even if CLR’s level of language neutrality becomes important, this can be patched into the JVM without major effort. A surprisingly large number of issues can be fixed by specification alone (for example, how to construct enumerated types? classes can be used, but different approaches are possible). Others, like unsigned integral types, would require changes to the VM and bytecode specifications. Isn't stuff like this why people don't like stuff that isn't standardized? Making a sweeping change like this to the JVM is likely to break many programs correct? Don't get me wrong, I like having a set standard, but at times it just stifles innovation; just look at the monkey phuck of a syntax for MC++ :-P James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki "My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think." - Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull 1972
James T. Johnson wrote: Isn't stuff like this why people don't like stuff that isn't standardized? Making a sweeping change like this to the JVM is likely to break many programs correct The whole point is that Sun and everyone else are scared. .NET is good. And this time MS has something more than marketing clout to play with. In fact if .NET really takes over, every other tool or technology might be wiped out, like happened with IE and other browsers. .NET will be the IE among technologies. Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
-
Yup, the _creat function was SUCH a good idea that it has been abandoned and considered obsolete. You don't even have an _fcreate, it is all handled by _fopen. The MS CRT source says it all.
int __cdecl _tcreat (
const _TSCHAR *path,
int pmode
)
{
/* creat is just the same as open... */
return _topen(path, _O_CREAT + _O_TRUNC + _O_RDWR, pmode);
}Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
BTW, do you know why Microsoft has prefixed all POSIX/ANSI functions with an underscore? I haven't found a good explanation yet.. It sucks when you port code from UNIX to Windows. You end up with a messy header file with loads of #defines. (Unless you make a total rewrite to Win32 that is)
-
James T. Johnson wrote: Isn't stuff like this why people don't like stuff that isn't standardized? Making a sweeping change like this to the JVM is likely to break many programs correct The whole point is that Sun and everyone else are scared. .NET is good. And this time MS has something more than marketing clout to play with. In fact if .NET really takes over, every other tool or technology might be wiped out, like happened with IE and other browsers. .NET will be the IE among technologies. Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: .NET will be the IE among technologies Well said Nish.Waiting for that day. Cheers Kannan
-
Thanks for that very informative post Jorgen [I could not get the o with two dots on top of it] :-) Nish Nish was here, now Nish has gone; He left his soul, to turn you on; Those who knew Nish, knew him well; Those who didn't, can go to hell. I like to :jig: on the Code Project Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: [I could not get the o with two dots on top of it] Try AllChars. It's free, and I find it very useful for typing characters in the top half of the ANSI character set. Gavin Greig