Why pay for VS.NET when JAVA is Free?

Discussion in 'Java' started by Mike Cox, Dec 14, 2004.

  1. Mike Cox

    Mike Cox Guest

    I've been a long time Windows developer until recently. Why should any
    company pay for developer tools when they could be had for free? My last
    Visual Studio product was Visual Studio 6.0. I then moved over to linux
    and GCC because web services were still in its infancy and no one was
    really using it. Therefore GCC, CORBA(ACE/TAO) and Linux were good enough
    compared to VC++ 7.0 and ATL 7.0.

    While Linux and GCC were good, Microsoft's IDE still rocked, and had a
    value. Linux developers needed to be smart because Emacs LISP is tough to
    wrap your head around in order to create the same functionality as MS VS.
    Furthermore, Emacs is uglier, and debugging is similar although less
    intuitive than VS. I was smart enough and a cheap enough to learn
    Emacs, so that VS was irrelevant unless eye candy counted.

    But lately, Web Services have started to mature. I was faced with a choice,
    go with .NET and VS.NET or move to JAVA. I looked at the costs associated
    with Microsoft versus JAVA / SUN and found SUN to be the low cost leader.
    StarOffice is cheaper than MS office. Solaris 10 will be completely free
    and include DTrace and other goodies. When I visited SUN's website, I saw
    free this and free that!

    But the best thing that was free IMHO was JAVA. Why should anyone pay $2500
    USD for VS.NET Enterprise Edition when one can just click to SUN.com and
    download J2EE and get exactly the same functionality for free!? Plus on
    top of that you will soon get a free Solaris 10 with DTrace and a new
    filesystem that can hold incredible amounts of data. When Solaris 10 comes
    out, my Linux and Windows boxes will head to the trash can.

    Why am I posting this? Well, to say that Microsoft is losing its developer
    base because competitively, they are more expensive than SUN now. SUN is
    the low cost leader. If MS made VS.NET enterprise free I might consider
    coming back, but only if they made MS Office more competitive with Open
    Office and reduced prices on their Server products. If Sun Solaris 10 is
    free robust and virus free, why pay through the nose for Windows then?
    Microsoft made its fortune on being the high volume low cost provider, but
    now it is more expensive than SUN. How ironic!
    Mike Cox, Dec 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Cox

    Mike Cox Guest

    "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
    wrote:


    > If you think that you will do a project with Java in less time that with
    > VS.NET, then go ahead with Java; it's the best decision that you can make
    > and, hopefully, a good one. However, if you think that it will take you
    > more time with Java but you make the decision of sticking with it because
    > it's free, then you know what someone might say about such a decision.


    Well, I would think that it takes the same amount of time to develop in
    either .NET or JAVA. They are quite similar. So in that case, free is a
    very good price.
    Mike Cox, Dec 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Simply because the costs of the software is only a part of the whole
    equation. You may say that Java is free, but if it take a programmer 6
    months with Java instead of 3 with .NET to develop a piece of code; then the
    real cost to the company who pay him is much, much higher than 0$.

    I won't enter into the discussion to know if doing a project with Java will
    really double the required time or not. You can even argue that it will
    take less time doing it with Java instead; I don't care here. The real
    point is not to know which one is more productive but to know that the
    decision of using a product instead of another can have consequences far
    more distant than simply the cost of buying the product.

    If you think that you will do a project with Java in less time that with
    VS.NET, then go ahead with Java; it's the best decision that you can make
    and, hopefully, a good one. However, if you think that it will take you
    more time with Java but you make the decision of sticking with it because
    it's free, then you know what someone might say about such a decision.

    S. L.

    "Mike Cox" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've been a long time Windows developer until recently. Why should any
    > company pay for developer tools when they could be had for free? My last
    > Visual Studio product was Visual Studio 6.0. I then moved over to linux
    > and GCC because web services were still in its infancy and no one was
    > really using it. Therefore GCC, CORBA(ACE/TAO) and Linux were good enough
    > compared to VC++ 7.0 and ATL 7.0.
    >
    > While Linux and GCC were good, Microsoft's IDE still rocked, and had a
    > value. Linux developers needed to be smart because Emacs LISP is tough to
    > wrap your head around in order to create the same functionality as MS VS.
    > Furthermore, Emacs is uglier, and debugging is similar although less
    > intuitive than VS. I was smart enough and a cheap enough to learn
    > Emacs, so that VS was irrelevant unless eye candy counted.
    >
    > But lately, Web Services have started to mature. I was faced with a
    > choice,
    > go with .NET and VS.NET or move to JAVA. I looked at the costs associated
    > with Microsoft versus JAVA / SUN and found SUN to be the low cost leader.
    > StarOffice is cheaper than MS office. Solaris 10 will be completely free
    > and include DTrace and other goodies. When I visited SUN's website, I saw
    > free this and free that!
    >
    > But the best thing that was free IMHO was JAVA. Why should anyone pay
    > $2500
    > USD for VS.NET Enterprise Edition when one can just click to SUN.com and
    > download J2EE and get exactly the same functionality for free!? Plus on
    > top of that you will soon get a free Solaris 10 with DTrace and a new
    > filesystem that can hold incredible amounts of data. When Solaris 10
    > comes
    > out, my Linux and Windows boxes will head to the trash can.
    >
    > Why am I posting this? Well, to say that Microsoft is losing its
    > developer
    > base because competitively, they are more expensive than SUN now. SUN is
    > the low cost leader. If MS made VS.NET enterprise free I might consider
    > coming back, but only if they made MS Office more competitive with Open
    > Office and reduced prices on their Server products. If Sun Solaris 10 is
    > free robust and virus free, why pay through the nose for Windows then?
    > Microsoft made its fortune on being the high volume low cost provider, but
    > now it is more expensive than SUN. How ironic!
    Sylvain Lafontaine, Dec 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike Cox

    AlexKay Guest

    "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
    wrote in message news:...
    > Simply because the costs of the software is only a part of the whole
    > equation. You may say that Java is free, but if it take a programmer 6
    > months with Java instead of 3 with .NET to develop a piece of code; then

    the
    > real cost to the company who pay him is much, much higher than 0$.


    I agree the 2.5K is neither here not there in the bigger picture.

    You're example of 3 months versus 6 months however, is extraordinary, a 100%
    difference. I'm interested, is this a real example? If not do you have any
    real examples?

    OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to show Windows boxes require a lot more
    support than Solaris boxes so what you may or may not gain in developer time
    you certainly loose in recurrent operational costs, year in year out.

    Regards
    Alex
    AlexKay, Dec 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Mike Cox

    jeffc Guest

    "Mike Cox" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >If Sun Solaris 10 is
    > free robust and virus free, why pay through the nose for Windows then?
    > Microsoft made its fortune on being the high volume low cost provider, but
    > now it is more expensive than SUN. How ironic!


    Not really - standard business :) Anyway, just wanted to point out that the
    reason Sun is relatively virus free is specifically because hardly anyone uses
    it compared to Windows. Hackers will always target the biggest base they can
    get.
    jeffc, Dec 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Mike Cox

    Rich Teer Guest

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, jeffc wrote:

    > Not really - standard business :) Anyway, just wanted to point out that the
    > reason Sun is relatively virus free is specifically because hardly anyone uses


    Absolute nonesense. Solaris (or any other UNIX or UNIX-like OS) is
    "relatively virus free" because of its more secure design. There's
    no way I, as a normal, unprovileged user, can affect other people's
    or system files. Other things, like the system's philosophy, and the
    general "clueness" of the users, also help.

    But I guess this explains your lack of knowledge:

    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409

    Congratulations: you're using one of the biggest virus spreaders
    known to man.

    > it compared to Windows. Hackers will always target the biggest base they can
    > get.


    ITYM "crackers".

    --
    Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming"

    President,
    Rite Online Inc.

    Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
    URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
    Rich Teer, Dec 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Rich Teer wrote:
    >>it compared to Windows. Hackers will always target the biggest base they can
    >>get.

    >
    > ITYM "crackers".


    ITYM "script kiddies". A real malicious hacker will target whatever he *wants*
    to target.
    Michael Borgwardt, Dec 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Mike Cox

    Chris Smith Guest

    AlexKay <> wrote:
    > I agree the 2.5K is neither here not there in the bigger picture.
    >


    Without knowing the situation of the person speaking, it's impossible to
    reasonably agree or disagree. It's often the case that labor is far
    more available than capital. You may work for an established business,
    but much software is written outside of that kind of environment.

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
    Chris Smith, Dec 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Mike Cox

    Steve Sobol Guest

    Sylvain Lafontaine wrote:
    > Simply because the costs of the software is only a part of the whole
    > equation. You may say that Java is free, but if it take a programmer 6
    > months with Java instead of 3 with .NET to develop a piece of code; then the
    > real cost to the company who pay him is much, much higher than 0$.


    > I won't enter into the discussion to know if doing a project with Java will
    > really double the required time or not.


    It's not something that can be answered without figuring out who will do the
    work. There are plenty of competent Java programmers out there, as well as
    plenty of competent .NET programmers, so if you're using someone who knows what
    he or she is doing, there shouldn't be that much difference in development
    time... regardless of development platform.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
    Steve Sobol, Dec 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike Cox

    Tim Tyler Guest

    In comp.lang.java.programmer Steve Sobol <> wrote or quoted:
    > Sylvain Lafontaine wrote:


    > > Simply because the costs of the software is only a part of the whole
    > > equation. You may say that Java is free, but if it take a programmer 6
    > > months with Java instead of 3 with .NET to develop a piece of code; then the
    > > real cost to the company who pay him is much, much higher than 0$.

    >
    > > I won't enter into the discussion to know if doing a project with Java will
    > > really double the required time or not.

    >
    > It's not something that can be answered without figuring out who will do the
    > work. There are plenty of competent Java programmers out there, as well as
    > plenty of competent .NET programmers, so if you're using someone who
    > knows what he or she is doing, there shouldn't be that much difference
    > in development time... regardless of development platform.


    The chances of the software you need to write already existing beneath
    the 9-year old Java platform are of course much higher - so the chances
    are much bigger that little or no work will need to be performed in the
    first place.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Tim Tyler, Dec 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Mike Cox

    Mark Preston Guest

    AlexKay wrote:

    [snip]

    > You're example of 3 months versus 6 months however, is extraordinary, a 100%
    > difference. I'm interested, is this a real example? If not do you have any
    > real examples?
    >

    In a recent survey by Computer Weekly in the UK, the development time
    was rather the other way around - it was found to be up to (and I stress
    the UP TO) twice as quick to develop software (for internet use) with
    J2EE rather than with .NET

    The results of the survey may well still be on the Computer Weekly
    website and are worth looking at. One thing it also pointed out was that
    for stand-alone software development for Windows-specific systems (not
    networked) development was significantly faster with .NET

    What I found particularly interesting was that very clear development
    hurdle that Microsoft still seems to have when it looks at the networked
    world. Of course, that is very much what .NET was originally supposed to
    address and it appears to fail at that even though it clearly succeeds
    as a stand-alone devlopment method.
    Mark Preston, Dec 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Mike Cox

    David Segall Guest

    Mike Cox <> wrote:

    >But the best thing that was free IMHO was JAVA. Why should anyone pay $2500
    >USD for VS.NET Enterprise Edition when one can just click to SUN.com and
    >download J2EE and get exactly the same functionality for free!?

    J2EE does not include any development tools. In particular there is no
    IDE. The comparable Sun product is Sun Java Studio Enterprise 7 which
    costs $US1895.00 and only supports Java.

    It is true that you can assemble a set of high quality Java software
    development tools at no cost but it requires some expertise and there
    is no one to blame if the tools don't work together.
    David Segall, Dec 15, 2004
    #12
  13. It was not my intention to demonstrate that the .NET framework is a better
    (or not) development plaftorm than Java or that there are no competent Java
    programmers around here.

    My statement was only about the fact that taking only the price of a piece
    of software (any software) into consideration when choosing a development
    solution is a rather limited and misleading point of view and that making
    the statement (or decision) that *free* softwares are the ultimate solution
    for everybody - only because it's free - can lead to serious damages. In
    fact, in my opinion, most of the times this aspect should be treated only as
    a relatively minor point to take into consideration.

    However, you have also a good point by stating that Java is 9-year old. I
    remember the first time I've tried 5-6 years ago, with other people in a big
    company, to install a multi-users Java platform development system. Java
    was then at about the same age as the .NET platform is now; however, only
    the simple fact of making it run correctly, without to much problems,
    required a lot of discussion, research time and testing of various versions
    running on different platforms and operating systems. And this - more or
    less - successfull installation was only the beginning of our problems.

    S. L.

    "Tim Tyler" <> wrote in message news:...
    > In comp.lang.java.programmer Steve Sobol <> wrote or
    > quoted:
    >> Sylvain Lafontaine wrote:

    >
    >> > Simply because the costs of the software is only a part of the whole
    >> > equation. You may say that Java is free, but if it take a programmer 6
    >> > months with Java instead of 3 with .NET to develop a piece of code;
    >> > then the
    >> > real cost to the company who pay him is much, much higher than 0$.

    >>
    >> > I won't enter into the discussion to know if doing a project with Java
    >> > will
    >> > really double the required time or not.

    >>
    >> It's not something that can be answered without figuring out who will do
    >> the
    >> work. There are plenty of competent Java programmers out there, as well
    >> as
    >> plenty of competent .NET programmers, so if you're using someone who
    >> knows what he or she is doing, there shouldn't be that much difference
    >> in development time... regardless of development platform.

    >
    > The chances of the software you need to write already existing beneath
    > the 9-year old Java platform are of course much higher - so the chances
    > are much bigger that little or no work will need to be performed in the
    > first place.
    > --
    > __________
    > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
    Sylvain Lafontaine, Dec 15, 2004
    #13
    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. JimmyJohn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    340
    JimmyJohn
    Sep 5, 2005
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    855
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,747
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  4. edcwealth1
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    234
    edcwealth1
    Jun 22, 2007
  5. coreyger
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    244
    coreyger
    Jun 22, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page