Poll: VB vs Visual J++

[stev0]

first:

BASIC is to Visual BASIC as
Java is to Visual Java ... right?

which is used more in the real world? which is more pratical... the reason i ask? no reason really, i'm fairly fluent with vb, who isnt?! and i'm working on java, i guess VJ++ just make me curious.

 

[Maverick]

no Java developer in their right mind uses Visual J++...they either use Borland JBuilder or VisualCafe in most cases. Change your poll to just Java vs VB.

 

VJ++#.NET or whatever the f' it's called is garbage.

 

[stev0]

Originally posted by: Shiva112
no Java developer in their right mind uses Visual J++...they either use Borland JBuilder or VisualCafe in most cases. Change your poll to just Java vs VB.

done and done... i've heard a bit about Borland JBuilder... it's basically the same sort of thing as far as Visual J++...just not microsoft, right?

 

[Descartes]

VJ++#.NET or whatever the f' it's called is garbage.

eh?

J# will be a constituent of the next VS.NET release

If you want to work w/ .NET and for whatever reason feel you would rather work in Java than C# (why would you?), go w/ J#. Else, I'd stick w/ "pure" Java...

It's my opinion that Java works well for it's niche and shouldn't be transmogrified to conform to other platforms. If you must interop with native libs on your platform, use JNI instead...

my $.02

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: stev0
first:

BASIC is to Visual BASIC as
Java is to Visual Java ... right?

which is used more in the real world? which is more pratical... the reason i ask? no reason really, i'm fairly fluent with vb, who isnt?! and i'm working on java, i guess VJ++ just make me curious.

wrong.

vb is used far more then any other programming language in the world

visuall j+++ is pretty nice, people who say don't use it, have in most likelyhood never tried it themselves.

 

Originally posted by: Descartes

VJ++#.NET or whatever the f' it's called is garbage.

If you want to work w/ .NET and for whatever reason feel you would rather work in Java than C# (why would you?), go w/ J#. Else, I'd stick w/ "pure" Java...

Exactly. If there ever comes a time to use .NET I will go for C#. Why use a poisoned version of Java when you can use Db, um C#.

visuall j+++ is pretty nice, people who say don't use it, have in most likelyhood never tried it themselves.

Version 1.0 was nice. The Microsoft DevStudio IDE ontop of Java. Subsequent versions were political tools at best.

 

[Maverick]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

visuall j+++ is pretty nice, people who say don't use it, have in most likelyhood never tried it themselves.

Are you talking more about the .NET version or the original version of J++? All I know is that Sun's jdk was much better than the one that was used with the old J++. I've not seen the new .NET version (J# or whatever it is).

 

[AU Tiger]

I though J++ was dead years ago due to lawsuits.

When it comes to .NET, Visual Basic is a whole new ballgame. Many things have changed from VB so if you think you know VB wait till you play around with .NET. A lot of the syntax is similar, but there are entirely new ways to do things in .NET compared to previous versions.

Edit: If moving to .NET, study C#. I believe it will replace VB in the future as most widely used Microsoft language.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Shiva112

Originally posted by: Ameesh

visuall j+++ is pretty nice, people who say don't use it, have in most likelyhood never tried it themselves.

Are you talking more about the .NET version or the original version of J++? All I know is that Sun's jdk was much better than the one that was used with the old J++. I've not seen the new .NET version (J# or whatever it is).

im talking about the old one. I did extensive work in java when i was in college and i tried all the IDEs they all sucked except J++ (especially forte) .

and most people have the misconception that if you wirte your java apps in J++ it will only work on ms operating systems or microsoft will read your email or use your credit cards or some $hit like that. Its total bs. just use the native classes in java and your code will work fine everywhere.

 

[Maverick]

Edit: If moving to .NET, study C#. I believe it will replace VB in the future as most widely used Microsoft language.

I don't think VB will ever get replaced by C# because its a very niche language. Its extremely high level and is therefore good for business apps and can be used for rapid development. Learning C# is pretty integral to learning .NET though. You can use VB functions in C# so I don't think it will ever die because of .NET use.

 

[Maverick]

im talking about the old one. I did extensive work in java when i was in college and i tried all the IDEs they all sucked except J++ (especially forte) .

and most people have the misconception that if you wirte your java apps in J++ it will only work on ms operating systems or microsoft will read your email or use your credit cards or some $hit like that. Its total bs. just use the native classes in java and your code will work fine everywhere.

Ok so you're speaking from an IDE level. I agree that most of the other IDEs totally suck. Forte is quite possibly the biggest piece of sh!t ever. But the J++ JDK didn't include a lot of the cool newer code that came in Java 1.2 and 1.3. I think thats why most people didn't use it. Not everyone wants to use just native classes to do everything. It gets extremely tedious when doing DB work.

 

IntelliJ IDEA is the best IDE I have ever used, Java or otherwise. I used to think Visual Studio was as good as it got, IDEA is light-years ahead. Downside, it's $300.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

im talking about the old one. I did extensive work in java when i was in college and i tried all the IDEs they all sucked except J++ (especially forte) .

and most people have the misconception that if you wirte your java apps in J++ it will only work on ms operating systems or microsoft will read your email or use your credit cards or some $hit like that. Its total bs. just use the native classes in java and your code will work fine everywhere.

Sure it works if you want an unsupported product developing only for Java 1.1.4 (and no Java2 APIs).

The world have friggen moved on. Quit recommending a dead product just because your company created it and you have some nostalgic college memories.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: Ameesh

im talking about the old one. I did extensive work in java when i was in college and i tried all the IDEs they all sucked except J++ (especially forte) .

and most people have the misconception that if you wirte your java apps in J++ it will only work on ms operating systems or microsoft will read your email or use your credit cards or some $hit like that. Its total bs. just use the native classes in java and your code will work fine everywhere.

Sure it works if you want an unsupported product developing only for Java 1.1.4 (and no Java2 APIs).

The world have friggen moved on. Quit recommending a dead product just because your company created it and you have some nostalgic college memories.

all you had to do was download the sun sdk and j++ would automatically get all the new Java classes available to it. if you knew anything about it then i might have an interesting talk with you but youseemed a little closed minded.

In fact i wouldnt reccomend anyone learning java now, but this guy specifically asked about J++ so keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

 

[Maverick]

Originally posted by: Ameesh


In fact i wouldnt reccomend anyone learning java now

No wonder you've got the reputation of being the local MS fanboy. Java is here to stay whether MS likes it or not. It will take years before C# reaches the same level of use. Not everyone can just up and migrate their entire enterprise software package to C# from Java. I know my company sure as hell can't...and we're not small either. They have no plans to use C# or even evaluate whether its worth using for at least 2-3 years. So don't go telling people not to learn Java...its still worth knowing.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Shiva112

Originally posted by: Ameesh


In fact i wouldnt reccomend anyone learning java now

No wonder you've got the reputation of being the local MS fanboy. Java is here to stay whether MS likes it or not. It will take years before C# reaches the same level of use. Not everyone can just up and migrate their entire enterprise software package to C# from Java. I know my company sure as hell can't...and we're not small either. They have no plans to use C# or even evaluate whether its worth using for at least 2-3 years. So don't go telling people not to learn Java...its still worth knowing.

thats nice, i have my opinion and you have yours, isnt the internet grand

 

[Maverick]

you've just been quoted

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Shiva112
you've just been quoted

good job.

 

[Descartes]

You can use VB functions in C# so I don't think it will ever die because of .NET use.

<atot:response mode="pedantic">

In .NET, there are no "<insert language here> functions". Each CLS conforming language emits compliant IL that, depending on the facilities provided, are accessible by any other language. Post-compilation, the source language is generally indiscernable unless an entirely heuristic approach is taken to remove the obvious (e.g. if you see any op_ routines in the IL, it can't be VB.NET as VB.NET doesn't support operator overloading). You can, however, create functions that are accessible by one language and not the other. For example: C# supports operator overloading; if you were to overload the + operator, the compiler will emit IL to include a function called op_Addition. VB.NET doesn't support operator overloading, but it can call the op_Addition function directly. Inversely, VB.NET cannot create the op_Addition function and have C# acknowledge it as an operator overload due to the unfortunate presence of a "specialname" flag that's emitted by the compiler when overloading an operator.

</atot:response>

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

all you had to do was download the sun sdk and j++ would automatically get all the new Java classes available to it. if you knew anything about it then i might have an interesting talk with you but youseemed a little closed minded.

LOL talk about the kettle calling the pot black. I admit I haven't used J++ in a while, and didn't realize anyone in their right mind would use J++ for Java2 development.
So I stand corrected (article dated December 1998).

In fact i wouldnt reccomend anyone learning java now, but this guy specifically asked about J++ so keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

You can childishly name-call all you want, but the facts are:

• VJ++ is end-of-lifed and hasn't been updated in years.
• The MS VM itself supports only Java 1.1.4 and hasn't been updated in ages, nor will it be.
• MS tried to embrace/extend Java, and ended up losing their license in court.

For all your pride in J++, it still doesn't explain why any rational developer would today choose J++ for Java development. Nice try to weasel out of it by disclaiming any endorsement of Java whatsoever.

 

[Maverick]

Originally posted by: Descartes

You can use VB functions in C# so I don't think it will ever die because of .NET use.

<atot:response mode="pedantic">

In .NET, there are no "<insert language here> functions". Each CLS conforming language emits compliant IL that, depending on the facilities provided, are accessible by any other language. Post-compilation, the source language is generally indiscernable unless an entirely heuristic approach is taken to remove the obvious (e.g. if you see any op_ routines in the IL, it can't be VB.NET as VB.NET doesn't support operator overloading). You can, however, create functions that are accessible by one language and not the other. For example: C# supports operator overloading; if you were to overload the + operator, the compiler will emit IL to include a function called op_Addition. VB.NET doesn't support operator overloading, but it can call the op_Addition function directly. Inversely, VB.NET cannot create the op_Addition function and have C# acknowledge it as an operator overload due to the unfortunate presence of a "specialname" flag that's emitted by the compiler when overloading an operator.

</atot:response>

does this affect performance in any way? Is the IL produced by the compiler less efficient than IL produced by adhering to one language?

 

[Descartes]

does this affect performance in any way? Is the IL produced by the compiler less efficient than IL produced by adhering to one language?

No, because you'll note that all this syntactical sugar (properties, delegates, events (which uses delegates), operator overloading) generates IL to call the appropriate methods directly. Ostensibly there is overhead, but that's all removed by the time it's compiled. For example, if you were to write a class library in C# that contained an overload for + that I consumed in a C# app, my use of + would "decompose" into IL that simply called op_Addition. A VB.NET consuming app would simply call YourClass.op_Addition(o1, o2).

I just wish there wasn't that "specialname" flag in the assembly, that way non-supporting languages could at least create wrappers.

 

Originally posted by: Shiva112
does this affect performance in any way? Is the IL produced by the compiler less efficient than IL produced by adhering to one language?

IL is IL is IL. It's always going to be slower than native. You can optimize IL but it's still going to be slow. The real magic is in the VM.

It seems to me .NET is much slower than Java at this stage of the game.

 

[Descartes]

The real magic is in the VM.

*nod*

I was about to say that we'd see more performant implementations of the CLI in the future; however, I realize that MS' commercial CLI implementation, the CLR, has many facilities that are not in the standard, so any chance of creating an analog will be difficult...

I'd like to see some performance numbers between MS' CLR JIT'er and some performant JIT'ers from competing Java VMs.