Open source Java on the way! (Re: BEA Weblogic blows away .NET, other J2EE servers in review by PC magazine)  
Author Message
kalim1999





PostPosted: 2003-8-22 13:20:00 Top

java-programmer, Open source Java on the way! (Re: BEA Weblogic blows away .NET, other J2EE servers in review by PC magazine) "codewriter" <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<Swd1b.4631$email***@***.com>...
> Java days are numbered. Dot Net is going to take over. This is the reality.
> So, you guys better get some C# books before it is too late.
> Amen.

ROTFLOL!

how many times did i hear this from j++ guys awhiles back, and even
from some ASP and COM jocks in AT&T (where i worked) in 1997(?) or so.
guess what happened? i'm still laughing my way to the bank and they're
trying to figure out c#/vb.net - the old microsoft treadmill,
methinks....

http://www.angrycoder.com/article.aspx?cid=1&y=2003&m=7&d=17

believe me, java will still be here years from now when microsoft has
moved on to the next BIG THING (dragging along all the developer
baggage for the ride - most of whom will be c#/vb.net developers in
india, no doubt).

in the meantime, some interesting news:

it seems sun may not be so stupid after all, and is working very
closely with open source organizations like apache and red hat to
spread java.

after apache announced a few weeks ago that it would be creating its
own open source J2EE app server, red hat announced that it was
planning on an open source java, with sun's blessing.

http://www.freeroller.net/page/kalimantan/20030822#red_hat_and_sun_to

methinks microsoft is in very big trouble.
 
The Ghost In The Machine





PostPosted: 2003-8-23 4:00:00 Top

java-programmer >> Open source Java on the way! (Re: BEA Weblogic blows away .NET, other J2EE servers in review by PC magazine) In comp.lang.java.advocacy, asj
<email***@***.com>
wrote
on 21 Aug 2003 22:19:55 -0700
<email***@***.com>:
> "codewriter" <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<Swd1b.4631$email***@***.com>...
>> Java days are numbered. Dot Net is going to take over. This is the reality.
>> So, you guys better get some C# books before it is too late.
>> Amen.
>
> ROTFLOL!
>
> how many times did i hear this from j++ guys awhiles back, and even
> from some ASP and COM jocks in AT&T (where i worked) in 1997(?) or so.

J++?

Wait...wasn't that Microsoft's entry into Java which was almost
100% java, except for some unauthorized modifications designed
to "improve" Microsoft's JVM and some omissions such as RMI?

My head hurts.

> guess what happened? i'm still laughing my way to the bank and they're
> trying to figure out c#/vb.net - the old microsoft treadmill,
> methinks....
>
> http://www.angrycoder.com/article.aspx?cid=1&y=2003&m=7&d=17
>
> believe me, java will still be here years from now when microsoft has
> moved on to the next BIG THING (dragging along all the developer
> baggage for the ride - most of whom will be c#/vb.net developers in
> india, no doubt).

I suspect Java will ultimately mutate into something Smalltalk-like,
or maybe something that supports both Aspect-Oriented and
Contract-Based programming models. But I agree; it'll be here
in some form.

>
> in the meantime, some interesting news:
>
> it seems sun may not be so stupid after all, and is working very
> closely with open source organizations like apache and red hat to
> spread java.
>
> after apache announced a few weeks ago that it would be creating its
> own open source J2EE app server, red hat announced that it was
> planning on an open source java, with sun's blessing.
>
> http://www.freeroller.net/page/kalimantan/20030822#red_hat_and_sun_to
>
> methinks microsoft is in very big trouble.

Not sure what'll happen but it's good to see open source making
a run at it. Microsoft, for its part, is a very cash-rich company
so I for one don't expect it to roll over and die immediately.

I'll admit to some reservations regarding the name
"Mad Hatter". But I suppose the logical alternatives --
"SunHat" and "Red Sun" -- might have been worse. :-)

--
#191, email***@***.com
It's still legal to go .sigless.
 
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen





PostPosted: 2003-8-23 6:08:00 Top

java-programmer >> Open source Java on the way! (Re: BEA Weblogic blows away .NET, other J2EE servers in review by PC magazine) The Ghost In The Machine <email***@***.com> writes:

> Wait...wasn't that Microsoft's entry into Java which was almost
> 100% java, except for some unauthorized modifications designed
> to "improve" Microsoft's JVM and some omissions such as RMI?

Yes. It has resurfaced, if you will, in the form of J# - you can even
get an experimental JFC/Swing implementation for it. Support for it is
an optional install, though, but so is the support for most other
languages than the four Microsoft support in VS.Net.

> I suspect Java will ultimately mutate into something Smalltalk-like,

Why, we already have Objective-C for that. <g>

> or maybe something that supports both Aspect-Oriented and
> Contract-Based programming models.

Eiffel?

A point to remember is that Java "beat" both of them.
 
 
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen





PostPosted: 2003-8-23 17:03:00 Top

java-programmer >> Open source Java on the way! (Re: BEA Weblogic blows away .NET, other J2EE servers in review by PC magazine) "Chad Myers" <email***@***.com> writes:

> That's a stretch. J# is not an attempt to be compatible with Java,
> far from it. The point is to assist the legions and legions of
> Java developers tripping over themselves to get .NET ;).

No, it's support for J++ apps in .Net, hence it succeeds J++.

> J++ was an attempt to embrace and extend Java, J# is just an example
> of how flexible .NET can be.

J# is a continuation of J++ in the .Net environment.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vjsharp/productinfo/overview/default.aspx

"Visual J# .NET 2003 includes tools to automatically upgrade and
convert existing Visual J++ 6.0 projects and solutions to the new
Visual Studio .NET 2003 format. These tools ensure that an existing
Visual J++ 6.0 developer can move easily to Visual J# .NET 2003 and
produce .NET-connected applications and components."

Though they also have the Java-to-C# route:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/downloads/tools/jlca/

> But you can have them all (well, maybe not ObjC) in .NET :)

What would be the point? Companies will kill themselves if they let
developers pick their own languages - code will at some point be
handed over to someone else, and someone would go crazy if they have
to support an application written in fifty different languages (which
are as many as someone from Microsoft claimed existed for .Net).

> There is a full Eiffel impl for .NET (yes, including MI, which is
> some wizardry that frightens and confuses a simple caveman like
> myself)

It probably uses delegation to "fake" MI.
 
 
Chad Myers





PostPosted: 2003-8-24 4:01:00 Top

java-programmer >> Open source Java on the way! (Re: BEA Weblogic blows away .NET, other J2EE servers in review by PC magazine)
"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <email***@***.com> wrote in
message news:email***@***.com...
> "Chad Myers" <email***@***.com> writes:
>
> > That's a stretch. J# is not an attempt to be compatible with Java,
> > far from it. The point is to assist the legions and legions of
> > Java developers tripping over themselves to get .NET ;).
>
> No, it's support for J++ apps in .Net, hence it succeeds J++.

Hrm.. not really. It's designed to be language-compatible for
the most part with Java, but MS doesn't make any claims that it
is compatible with, or can be cross-framework portable. The
only point is to make Java developers feel at home so they'll
convert. This means both J++ and Sun Java developers.

There are converters (Microsoft Java Language Conversion Assistant,
etc) that ease this process.

J++'s point was to try to be binary compatible with Java (unless
you used the switch that allowed JDirect code), J# has no such
point.

> > J++ was an attempt to embrace and extend Java, J# is just an example
> > of how flexible .NET can be.
>
> J# is a continuation of J++ in the .Net environment.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vjsharp/productinfo/overview/default.aspx
>
> "Visual J# .NET 2003 includes tools to automatically upgrade and
> convert existing Visual J++ 6.0 projects and solutions to the new
> Visual Studio .NET 2003 format. These tools ensure that an existing
> Visual J++ 6.0 developer can move easily to Visual J# .NET 2003 and
> produce .NET-connected applications and components."

Right, like I said, J# is fully .NET. It's not J++ 7.0. They are
saying that J++ and Java users should convert to .NET -- and oh, by
the way, we have this nifty language called J# that'll make it
easy for you.

> Though they also have the Java-to-C# route:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/downloads/tools/jlca/
>
> > But you can have them all (well, maybe not ObjC) in .NET :)
>
> What would be the point? Companies will kill themselves if they let
> developers pick their own languages - code will at some point be
> handed over to someone else, and someone would go crazy if they have
> to support an application written in fifty different languages (which
> are as many as someone from Microsoft claimed existed for .Net).

The point is not to let every developer choose his or her own
language on the same project, the point is to let different
companies choose their language of choice, without loosing
compatibility with other departments in the same company or
partners with the company.

If you had a large company that had some Java here, some C++
here, some VB6 here and some COBOL over there, you could start
making a standard that all new projects must be .NET. The various
departments would have very little to do to meet that requirement.

Compared with having each department write all these crazy
interop DLLs and frameworks so that the VB6 can talk with Java
can talk with COBOL and use CORBA, etc, .NET makes a hell of a
lot more sense.

> > There is a full Eiffel impl for .NET (yes, including MI, which is
> > some wizardry that frightens and confuses a simple caveman like
> > myself)
>
> It probably uses delegation to "fake" MI.

No, the original Eiffel impl used tricks like that, but the new
version does not. It's an interesting read. There are
several articles about it, here's the first one that
popped up on my Google search:
http://tinyurl.com/kytc [MSDN]

Here's the Google search, there are lots of other good
articles:
http://tinyurl.com/kyth [MSDN]

-c


 
 
kalim1999





PostPosted: 2003-8-24 6:21:00 Top

java-programmer >> Open source Java on the way! (Re: BEA Weblogic blows away .NET, other J2EE servers in review by PC magazine) "Chad Myers" <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...

<SNIP>

J# is a useless microsoft marketing invention, just like J++ was a
thwarted attempt by microsoft to hijack java. i'm still laughing at
all the j++ idiots who ignored all our warnings. they used to have a
J++ newsgroup too - LOL.

Visual J# .NET - A Solution Looking For A Problem?
http://www.angrycoder.com/article.aspx?cid=10&y=2002&m=7&d=10

Too close to C#
Any Java developer who is worth his salt has probably recognized the
phenominal (and intentional) similarity between Java and C# syntax. If
a Java developer were inclined to switch to .NET development, why
would they not use the language that Microsoft is likely more
concerned about? A typical Java developer is more skilled than 9 out
of 10 VB programmers out there (a sad, but undeniable truth), so
picking up the syntactic differences between the two languages
wouldn't be very difficult to do. The biggest challenge is learning
the classes in the .NET Framework, anyway.


Java developers don't want to convert, anyway
If I was a good Java developer (which I'm not...I've only dabbled in
it), why in the hell would I want to switch to .NET? I would already
have just about everything that .NET has to offer (the .NET
feature-set was largely based on the design of the Java architecture),
and I would get cross-platform compatibility to boot. The .NET
Framework and languages are cross-platform capable, but it's still a
long way from being a reality (yeah, I know about the various ongoing
cross-platform .NET projects). It would seem like a major leap, just
to get back to a fraction of where I am today, considering you can
find Java in everything from the microchip in your credit card to
embedded systems to PDA operating systems to PCs to supercomputers.
That's a lot of market coverage to give up. Java developers don't
really want .NET, so it's kind of a tough sell.

Visual J# is likely just a marketing ploy
It is unrealistic to think that Microsoft will continue to support two
ultra-similar .NET languages on a long-term basis. When it comes time
to choose, Microsoft will most likely throw its weight behind the
language that they hatched themselves, unfettered by any alphanumeric
attachment to SUN. Visual J# is a bridge technology, created to woo
Java developers (unsuccessfully, I'll wager). Who wants to invest a
lot of money and effort into developing with a bridge technology?