I'm not interested in the Sun/MS evil empire duality. "The right tool for the job" said it all. I've worked with Java for a while and it used to save my but when complexity ran up against the cross-browser compatibility constraint. I'm working with .NET now, and I find it to be very nice too. But I can't reconcile this vehement partisanship I am reading here with my own primary loyalty--to my clients.

Those who lose always have an excuse

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1137229

The core Windows-based banking application has been rewritten in Java to make it available on any system, including over the web. One iSeries 820 server now runs the entire European operation from London, substantially reducing administration and licence costs.

"Linux runs Java much quicker than Windows. It's the natural operating system to run Java," said Evans, who added that other applications are now gradually being ported to Linux.

Why do java if one is developing on Windows? Because one might not be deploying there or doesn't want to be limited to just Windows. Look at what Fed Ex just did. BTW if performance is an issue, you can still use Java. If the person has no clue how to build good software and properly deal with performance, may the solution is to let someone else do it. They are going to have problems no matter what the software.

A language that tries to be everything to all, bloats itself with APIs, and is controlled by a conglomerate of corporations with no sound strategic direction is doomed.

I like Java. Always have. But it's days are numbered.

If you are developing on Windows and performance is an issue (perhaps even time-to-market), why the heck would you even *consider* Java?

This very JDJ article smacks of Microsoft FUD (fear, uncertanty, doubt). I liked the previous post pointing out that benchmarks are irrelevant, marketing hype. Focusing on customer needs and delivering solutions is what is really important. Each system has it's strengths and weaknesses, so choosing the right one for the job is the key. Pounding a square peg into a round hole takes more time, looks silly, and frustrates everyone involved. I once heard a wise co-worker once say that systems are like golf clubs, just take the time to pull the right club from the bag. It's extremely rare that any company can create the super widget that does everything for everyone. One size fits none.

If you need to compare J2EE and .Net, you have to rewrite petstore using only Stateless EJBs. Microsoft only has stateless components. Stateless components are the fastest. Write a stateless version in J2EE and send it to Redmond. This is all they understand.

Those J2EE developers out there, follow the J2EE blueprints and use all types of beans available in J2EE. Bill Gates will have somthing comparable to Entity Beans in about 5 years. Then we can have a one to one comparision.

In the meantime, we can laugh at the Windows developers who lack these sophisticated services we have in J2EE. Can you imagine coding a real world application without stateful, entity, MDB, etc?

Java is slow. That's only a big shocking suprise to retards. Get over it.

"I have found that performance is not the #1 priority"

Yeah, because otherwise, Java would not be their first choice. Java has many great benefits. Why can't you admit it's shortcommings? If we can all agree that Java wasn't designed for performance, then why are you denying that it's been outperformed? Get a grip.

If this airhead Ed Roman is considered a heavy hitter in JavaLand, then Java is in serious, serious Trouble (yes, with a capital

Whine, whine, whine. Losing to .NET is all this magazine ever talks about. I'm sick of hearing it, folks. Why don't you just admit .NET is better and close the doors on Java? You could rename your magazine to the .NET Journal or whatever.

Might as well be called that now.

The light of reason shines! :) Some people get too attached to Java just because it's a good tool and is not the evil and nasty Microsoft Corporation.

Java is actually owned by the evil and nasty Sun Corporation. But at least it's not Larry Ellison. :)

I've read a number of accounts of the benchmark fiasco and there's something missing for me. Why don't people simply suggest what makes a benchmark fair to begin with? Or is everyone afraid to?

First, both J2EE and .Net should use THE SAME INSTANCE of THE SAME DATABASE and call the same views or stored procedures on it. There is no reason this can't be done somehow.

A) Out of the myriad of JDBC drivers for MS SQL Server surely AT LEAST ONE OF THEM will work well enough to be run on a J2EE system - especially since one (DataDirect) is recommended by Microsoft and another (Kona) is manufactured by the same people who make J2EE "Server A." There are FIVE DRIVERS for MS SQLlisted on JavaSkyline forpeetsake.

B) And if not MS SQL, run Oracle on both systems since Oracle makes an ADO provider. Either way, you have to get them to use the same instance of a database - so you aren't comparing dollars and doughnuts and you begin to eliminate network configuration problems.

It's fine to say that the benchmark isn't "database" limited. But that's no excuse and when the difference is less than an order of magnitude, the DB can make a big difference.

Second, EJB entity beans have got to go. I know it takes a long time to reprogram, but it just adds too many differences when A) there are no managed objects in the .Net version and second, and B) even if there are, we have no idea of the comparitive functionality of EBs vs. managed objects. Get rid of them - both of them. Just use stateless sessions.

Third, when do "Server C" and "Server D" and "Server E" get a chance? By that I mean C) Oracle 9i AS and D) Mort Bay with some unnamed open source EJB server - where you get to use Mort Bay's slick JDK 1.4 NIO enabled servlet engine - and E) Caucho Resin and F) Macromedia JRun Server G) Novell and H) SunONE.

You can't really say and believe that J2EE is slower than .Net unless you at least let the Hot Rods onto the track.

Fourth, let the App Server manufacturer say whether they run best on some version of Unix or some version of Windows. "Server C" might like Linux while "Server B" likes AS/400... If you pay the same amount for the Hardware, why does it matter which OS is used?

Just some thoughts.

Folks, start your engines!

Regards and the best to all

Rich Katz

I think most readers agree that the Java solution could have been made faster.

But, the test does demonstrate that the .NET solution is fast/scalable enough for 98% of all applications out there (on a single 8cpu machine at 1/2 the cost).

Also, I was impressed with the almost linear salability. Intel is FINALLY starting to make some fast processors, so the suitability for a given high end task will only get better.

My only serious question would be about reliability. MS has historically come up short in this measure.

Here is the point if you run the test in Linux Java beats .Not by 100 to 1. Oh wait .Not keeps on failing in Linux from my tests so what does this say for .Not. All .Not is just a M$ sham and it has back fired badly. Message to Microsoft you can bribe the justice department, TMC and middleware, Alan but the consumer knows the truths we had enough of VB crap and windows crashing.

Mr Evident, if only you had taken time to read the benchmark report, you'll know that Microsoft .Net PetShop has run only twice as fast as this very very badly architected version of Java Petstore.

Furthermore, this pityful version designed (?) by TMC used very old components (EJB1.1 were released in 2000), furthermore EJBs are distributed objects, with all that this implies in terms of lack of performances, while you won't even find an object using .Net Remoting in Micrsoft PetShop!!!

All in all, I'me quite sure that some well designed Java version of petstore, like JPetstore 2.0, which will be released soon, should perform a couple of times better than PetShop on Windows, and infinitely better on any other operating system, like Unix or Linux or *Bsd, or IBMs Mainframes, which represents something like 80% of companies servers (including Microsoft, as I was told recently, which amused me a lot...)

Just one last point to end this post. Microsoft has never been a lion, but they sure are monkeys since the very beginning : they invented very few (I say thanks for SOAP), bought some stuff(remember DOS : as I told, since the beginning...) and copied much, like monkeys (OS with windows, language running in a VM, strongly typed, using a Garbage Collector --Java ? no, C#)

Monkeys, it's Evident