Re: Comparison of Java, C# for development on Windows and future for them

Discussion in 'Java' started by Chris, Jan 10, 2003.

  1. Chris

    Chris Guest

    You mention that your development environment is Windows, but not what
    the target platforms / environments are. What I mean is - what SORT
    out application(s) are you going to be developing?

    If it's largely client-side stuff (Windows-based GUIs, etc) then
    you're probably better off focusing on C#, since it's heavily
    orientated towards implementing client-side applications (MS advocates
    will disagree and say it can do absolutely anything, but they'd be
    wrong IMHO).

    If it's more enterprise-level stuff (i.e. servers, web services, etc)
    then Java has the market and is most suitable for this sort of
    project.

    One other point - Java is generally slower than C/C++, but only by a
    small fraction usually, and is sometimes actually quicker for certain
    situations! But the important issue is not speed of execution but ease
    of development / time to market, i.e. Java is considerably easier to
    optimise than C/C++, and certainly faster to write and less
    error-prone. From what I've seen so far this is also the case for Java
    and C#. I haven't yet seen any Java-C# speed comparisons (or at least
    any unbiased ones).

    Hope this helps a little.

    - sarge
     
    Chris, Jan 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Thornton
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,081
    Richard J Woodland
    Jan 8, 2003
  2. Maciek
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,495
    Maciek
    Jan 8, 2003
  3. Karsten Lentzsch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,757
    Chad Myers
    Jan 10, 2003
  4. Alex
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,381
  5. Tim Ward
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,308
    Tim Ward
    Jan 9, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page