| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Survey: Java outstrips .Net for IT pros | |
|
||
| Time: 10:51 EST/15:51 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Web services are not just a hype by suppliers looking for new sales; they will take off in 2002, and the majority will be based on Java rather than Microsoft's .Net alternative, according to a poll of enterprise IT professionals run by ZDNet UK's Tech Update channel. More than two-thirds of the respondents (69.5 percent), at the time of writing, plan to deliver some applications by Web services by the end of 2002, with a large majority of those (nearly half the total sample) planning to use Java. Only 21.5 percent plan to use Microsoft .Net, less than the figure (23.5 percent) planning to use neither. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:55:00 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 531 (66.188.86.105) at 12/23/2001 2:03:25 PM |
|
#16: Microsoft ported Sun's Java Pet Shop application to .NET. Here are some pages with some performance statistics: http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/ This post was edited by mikekol on Sunday, December 23, 2001 at 14:06. |
| #2 By 20 (24.243.32.227) at 12/23/2001 2:38:58 PM |
|
I work for a Java shop, and there is strong talk of how our application could be a web service. Fortunately, our future plans involve something that web services would solve very easily. Since we're a Java shop, there is much talk of how to implement this in Java, but the simple fact is, there's no good way. There are loose groups of various technologies for Java, but there is no clear, coherent way to implement Web Services in Java unless you pay an arm or leg to IBM, Sun, or BEA. With .NET it's a.) free, b.) logical and intergrated, and c.) free (did I mention free?).
The problem with Java is that it was created in academics and has followed that path. Only rarely does it stray from academic perfection to become practical for usage in the real world. .NET is the opposite. It's practical with a backing of academic purity, but it's primary focus is practicality. If for no other reason, this is why .NET will win in the long run. |
| #3 By 61 (65.34.110.20) at 12/23/2001 3:17:23 PM |
|
What yall seem to be misunderstanding is, along with many other people, like many of the quite moronic ZDNet readers, is that they are NOT talking about the Java programming language when it comes to comparing it to .NET, because quite frankly there is no comparison, .NET is NOT a language, it's a platform, and it's being compared with J2EE, NOT, I repeat NOT the Java programming language.
And from what I've heard, J2EE, to use a friends line, "blows goats". |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/23/2001 3:48:45 PM |
|
I would just like to point out to all those bafoons who think because a college teaches something, it will be the defacto standard...
When I was in college, Pascal was the language that all Computer Science courses were taught in... Our object oriented lessons were taught using Smalltalk. Neither of these languages is even remotely popular today. |
| #5 By 2332 (165.247.5.108) at 12/23/2001 6:12:20 PM |
|
Those that choose Java over .NET for web services are doing so for one of two primary reasons:
1.) They have to; they are using non-Microsoft server software and can't afford (or don't want to) switch over. 2.) They are completely ignorant of the capabilities of .NET, either because of Sun propaganda or plain old disinterest. OR, a combination of the above. Anybody who can, will switch to .NET for web services creation simply because it is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. |
| #6 By 10 (24.17.9.97) at 12/24/2001 12:44:42 AM |
| hmmm, lets see..Java has been around now for, what, 5 years now? lets revisit this discussion 5 years after .Net has been up and running and see what the story is! ;) |
| #7 By 61 (65.34.110.20) at 12/24/2001 10:46:58 AM |
|
#26
Again, we shall revisit for the morons such as yourself. We are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT talking about the Java programming language here, we ARE talking about the Java platform, known as J2EE, which has NOT been around for 5 years. #27, are you just as dumb as #26? .NET is a platform, it's a platform based on open standards (and C# IS now a standards), and therefore you pay no royalties when making software for the .NET platform, therefore it is free. And finally, #27, ZDNet is just stupid, it's writers are complete morons, and it's readers are even more pathetic. |
| #8 By 61 (65.34.110.20) at 12/24/2001 1:13:55 PM |
|
#29
Or maybe you are just a moron ABM troll. Windows doesn't have significant security flaws, and IIS6 is a complete rewrite of the code base..... AND just because you choose .NET, doesn't mean you have to be on Windows, .NET is cross platform. |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/24/2001 2:06:44 PM |
|
#31 - What are those prices for?
|
| #10 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 12/24/2001 6:47:49 PM |
|
#35 - .Net allows cross platform communication, quite easily. This is the whole basis of SOAP and web services. This is by and large a more important problem than having to run the same program on multiple computers, for most companies. Also keep in mind that Java is not cross platform in this regard, both machines have to be running the Java platform, or you need to introduce a third agent to translate. This is how they've tied into SOAP.
Please remember that Sun was very reluctant to adopt the standards upon which .Net is, at least in part, based upon. Specifically SOAP. They wanted to come up with their own proprietary solution which was largely based upon the Java spec(Remember that Java does not communicate well cross-platform). SOAP was championed by Microsoft and is fundamentally tied into .Net. One could easily say that SOAP toolkits were the first preview of .Net would be. So while I appreciate your point, it's rather academic. Solaris is only free because you have to buy your hardware from Sun. x86 support has been poor at best, and I recall they announced Solaris 9 wouldn't support it. The discussion was more regarding licensing of J2EE, which is a good chunk of change. .Net is not DNA, and I'm not clear why you are confusing the two. "abandons their current direction of price gouging through forced upgrades and mandatory subscription services" You are never forced to upgrade. You only upgrade if you perceive value from it. If you perceive value from the upgrade, why do you disdain paying for this? While I agree that .Net is no more a panacea than any other development environment, there is a lot there to like. Much moreso than has been found in Java's aborted attempts at valhalla. |
| #11 By 61 (65.34.110.20) at 12/24/2001 9:12:23 PM |
|
#38
That's not forcing you to upgrade, that's saying upgrade now, or you will have to pay full price later... just because you would have to pay full price later does not mean they are forcing you to upgrade, hell, you could use the same stuff for the next decade if you wanted to, it wouldn't be smart, but you can. |
| #12 By 2332 (165.247.5.238) at 12/24/2001 11:40:51 PM |
|
Ok, a few things.
First, let's keep cost analysis non-arbitrary please. Something is free if IT doesn't cost money, regardless of the total cost of ownership. .NET is free. Linux is free. [Insert Favorite Product that's free] is free. All products have other costs associated with them; it's how they minimize those associated costs that are of real interest. Since we are still in the RC stages of .NET, I'm not sure it's fair to start doing comparisons of TCO... but .NET is shaping up to be a very low TCO product, mostly because they majority of cost involved with enterprise systems is the design/coding stages of development, and .NET increases productivity in those areas leaps and bounds over current alternatives. Second, please drop the cross-platform war for now. .NET *will* be running on many other platforms in the near future, but I've only seen the FreeBSD port in action. I've also seen the Linux-port project, although the name escapes me right now. At any rate, being cross-platform HAS NEVER been a big deal when talking about server environments. Server applications need to be fast and scalable, not slow (or, at least slower) and portable. Period. It's few and far between that I hear a client ask for a portable server application. It's common, however, to hear a client as for an interoperable server applications - there is a BIG difference! .NET - right now - is awesome at interoperation. That will be a big selling point. Third, the W3C tends to take an almighty role in many of these developments. Just because the W3C rejected early MS work (which I had never really heard of, until now... any sources I can look at?), doesn't mean that that work was sub-par or something. When Microsoft first submitted the Document Object Model (yes, they were the ones to *invent* it... imagine that) to the W3C, the W3C seemed quite pleased - only to not allow Microsoft representatives on the board for the DOM until it was nearly finished. Seems pretty unfair to me. The few changes I did see the W3C suggest were in the semantics of the web service interaction, not really the SOAP envelops themselves. Microsoft, for the most part, has stuck to established standards while developing .NET. Also, the statement: "FOr example, MS wasn't even going to support ODBC in .Net untill the developer community got in an uproar and finally got MS to reconsider; the result of which went RC beta just this week." That's simply not true. ODBC support was in ADO.NET since beta 1 (the first public release). Was this a pre-beta issue? Are you suggesting that it was only going to support SQL Server out of the box? That would seam like a foolhardy and stupid decision. I had never heard of any of this controversy... perhaps I just missed it in the newsgroups. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 162 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:55:00 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
