[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Neil Williams wrote: > On Monday 03 Feb 2003 10:23 pm, Simon Waters wrote: > >>Theo Zourzouvillys wrote: >> >>>C# itself is a very nice language >> >>But Theo you hate Java I thought, so what is it about C# that >>makes you say it is "nice"? > > > C# as Java without the virtual machine overhead? To get a compiled executable > app to run on Linux and Windows is always going to need a re-compile, but > that (IMHO) is better than trying to emulate that re-compilation each time > the program runs by using another level of translation at run-time like the > VM. So how exactly do you think C# gets to be portable, Neil ? Or are you advocating against Java, C#, Perl and Python, and byte code in general? I don't think there is much difference between C# and Java in terms of run time overhead, sure Java without JIT compilation might be slower than similar code in C#, but who needs to run Java without a JIT (well probably the kind of people who don't have a C# port yet, so it isn't really a choice for them). The only substantive difference seems to be with regard to integrating with other languages, and the lack of security features for mobile code in C#. So any "advantage" would seem to have to come from the different binding into COM and other languages. Maybe it is a perspective thing, most of the Java stuff was client side, so integration with other components was important but not huge. We used a bridge tool for the Microsoft components so the gluing step was trivial as the tool utilise JNI to do marshalling. Basically a case of "give me this bean as a Microsoft object please". Server side integration was mostly straight into a database - JDBC. Sure easier integration in a language will be welcomed, but there are specific issues that are not easily overcome, such as typing issues with databases. JDBC lays down how Java standard tyes (integer) etc map to databases, where you integrate different languages with different primitive types to the same persistent store there will always be issues. Besides in most cases attempts to "go native" walk straight into portability issues, so easier integration might help, but I need convincing. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+PwWSGFXfHI9FVgYRAuvJAJ9k1MNczPdNjyWhKPG/EBX9jpYjTACeOti0 s1I0mBk73q1qbO7vOV0e8Os= =AwT3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.