.NET vs Java (Windows service development)
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Delay Methods
Next: VB Community Transition
From: Tom Shelton on 21 Jul 2010 11:23 DanS wrote : > "Cor" <Notmyfirstname(a)planet.nl> wrote in > news:OlLFFPCKLHA.5464(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > >> My English is know gibberish, but that does not mean that I >> never hear an English song. >> >> Seems to me that by instance the song >> >> "There aint no mountain high enough" is well know enough. >> >> I had not the idea that the performers of this song where >> most hillbilly rednecks >> (can be that I don't understand what you mean with it) >> Rednecks is in my perception the nick name for the British >> in the US revolutionary war. > > That was Red Coats....not Rednecks. > > But you never answered my question about you claifying what > you meant, so my original question is below. > > >>> >>>> There aint, you could also do it with VB6. >>> >>> Is an answer to what question ? >>> >>> This one ?............ >>> >>> "I would like to know some good comparative points for >>> .NET 4.0 over Java in windows service development." >>> ....... ? >>> >>> >>> So there are no good points for using .Net over Java ? On a strictly language/runtime comparison I would say that one was as good as the other - though, I have no experience writing a service in Java. Which is the reason I would pick .NET over Java - experience. I know I could code a service in Java if asked. I used to do quite a bit of Java programming, but, that was 8 years ago or so I would need to do some refreshing :) -- Tom Shelton
From: Karl E. Peterson on 21 Jul 2010 12:46 After serious thinking Paul Clement wrote : > practically everything is a wrapper. *whack* -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Mayayana on 21 Jul 2010 22:06 | Earlier I had installed the ATI graphics | card software, which just shows a little tray icon to have instant | access (by clicking it or by hot key) to the cards setup and option GUI. | Boy, they used .NET and it did cost me literally hundreds of megs of ram | just for this tray icon sitting there and waiting. | Why not just stop that service? Adjusting graphics is not something that usually needs to be done once things are set up. I have no .Net or Java -- on XP. (OpenOffice wants to use Java, unfortunately, but I haven't installed it. I still don't know exactly what functionality I'm missing, but it doesn't seem to matter.) I've never come across anything I need or want that requires .Net/Java. If I did I'd have to look for an alternative. It's one thing to run .Net/Java applets server-side (where they belong and where the support may be already installed). It's another thing to write software for SOHo machines that may need 300+ MB of support files installed in order to run. There's just no excuse for that kind of stupidity and lack of consideration.
From: Mayayana on 22 Jul 2010 12:14 |I think you are being stubborn. The dependency already is there -- it is | part of the OS, at least for this (.NET) discussion. It certainly doesn't | affect performance, except on the boundary, where C/C++ are appropriate. | I've never deployed the .NET Framework. The Java runtime argument exists, | but not .NET. Speak for yourself. To assume that hundreds of MB of dependencies are something that you can just consider to be part of the OS is irresponsible at best. It might be true for your specific situation, but not for many. To assume that everyone can afford to run such unnecessary bloat in RAM, or wants to, is also an irresponsible assumption. Mark Russinovich speculated half-jokingly, when ..Net was in its early days, that .Net bloat was so extreme one had to wonder whether MS was investing in RAM companies. Sure enough, in the intervening years, with no notable changes to the functionality of Windows, the basic reassonable RAM level has gone from about 256MB to about 4GB.
From: Cor on 22 Jul 2010 14:34
In my perception it was about 16K to 4Tb and strange enough did the price for that not change. (I am not writing about toy computers, but real ones) "Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> wrote in message news:i29qls$134$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > |I think you are being stubborn. The dependency already is there -- it is > | part of the OS, at least for this (.NET) discussion. It certainly > doesn't > | affect performance, except on the boundary, where C/C++ are appropriate. > | I've never deployed the .NET Framework. The Java runtime argument > exists, > | but not .NET. > > Speak for yourself. To assume that hundreds > of MB of dependencies are something that you > can just consider to be part of the OS is > irresponsible at best. It might be true for your > specific situation, but not for many. > > To assume that everyone can afford to run such > unnecessary bloat in RAM, or wants to, is also an > irresponsible assumption. > > Mark Russinovich speculated half-jokingly, when > .Net was in its early days, that .Net bloat was so > extreme one had to wonder whether MS was investing > in RAM companies. Sure enough, in the intervening > years, with no notable changes to the functionality > of Windows, the basic reassonable RAM level has > gone from about 256MB to about 4GB. > > > |