Looking For Direction
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Arved Sandstrom on 10 Jun 2010 17:45 David Kerber wrote: > In article <4c1033b3$0$278$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk>, arne(a)vajhoej.dk > says... > > ... > >> Given that he has Java, JDBC and Oracle experience then he should >> have at least some advantages going Java instead of .NET. > > Not to mention that those are all cross-platform options. while .NET > locks you into a windows-based network. The way Mono is moving along that's not strictly speaking true. In any case, being "locked into" a Windows-based network is not exactly a liability, not now and not for a few more decades. As it is, the majority of fellow developers and clients that I deal with do J2SE/J2EE on Windows. Every job I've had there's always been a fair bit - often a majority - of other applications that have been on Windows. So it may be a point of pride that your app in theory could run on many OS's, but since almost everyone will have Windows who really cares? AHS -- It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
From: Arved Sandstrom on 10 Jun 2010 17:48 David Kerber wrote: > In article <w4zq1vcfx8ga.fsf(a)88VT03J.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address-- > so-tickle-me>, me(a)me.com says... >> David Kerber <dkerber(a)WarrenRogersAssociates.invalid> writes: >> >>> In article <4c1033b3$0$278$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk>, arne(a)vajhoej.dk >>> says... >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> Given that he has Java, JDBC and Oracle experience then he should >>>> have at least some advantages going Java instead of .NET. >>> Not to mention that those are all cross-platform options. while .NET >>> locks you into a windows-based network. >> And doesn't .NET also tend to drag you into to license fees and other >> expenses; whilst Java has an open source eco-system? > > I don't know a whole lot about the .NET ecosystem, but Java absolutely > has a very strong open-source community. > > Since he's the one writing the lab software, he can probably get the > entire office redone with zero software expenses, if he were to use > Linux for the OS, Postgres or mySQL (or the free version of Oracle) as > the db, and his own software for the front end. [ SNIP ] And apart from the price of a legal copy of Windows you could do everything else in the .NET ecosystem for free also. In any case the cost of labour is going to dwarf the cost of software in this scenario. AHS -- It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
From: Arne Vajhøj on 10 Jun 2010 17:50 On 10-06-2010 10:34, me(a)me.com wrote: > David Kerber<dkerber(a)WarrenRogersAssociates.invalid> writes: >> In article<4c1033b3$0$278$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk>, arne(a)vajhoej.dk >> says... >> >> ... >> >>> Given that he has Java, JDBC and Oracle experience then he should >>> have at least some advantages going Java instead of .NET. >> >> Not to mention that those are all cross-platform options. while .NET >> locks you into a windows-based network. > > And doesn't .NET also tend to drag you into to license fees and other > expenses; whilst Java has an open source eco-system? ..NET runtime, C# compiler, Visual Studio Express, SQLServer Express etc. are all free. It does require Windows which is not free. There are not as much open source for .NET as for Java, but there are plenty. Some of it is very familiar for Java people: NHibernate, NUnit, NAnt, Log4net etc.. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 10 Jun 2010 17:53 On 10-06-2010 12:09, JC wrote: > 3. Interesting about the Vector class as I use java.util.Vector extensively > in the app, You will just need to learn to type ArrayList instead. And you will probably not even notice any differences. Arne
From: Lew on 10 Jun 2010 17:53
Lew wrote: >> It would be best if they didn't go the stupid route. > Tom Anderson wrote: > ... is nonsense. > So they *should* go the stupid route? -- Lew |