Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Why pay for VS.NET when JAVA is Free?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why pay for VS.NET when JAVA is Free?

 
 
Mike Cox
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004
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!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Cox
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004
"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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sylvain Lafontaine
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004
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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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!



 
Reply With Quote
 
AlexKay
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004

"Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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



 
Reply With Quote
 
jeffc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004

"Mike Cox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich Teer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Borgwardt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004
AlexKay <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Sobol
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004
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 (463 / http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Tyler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2004
In comp.lang.java.programmer Steve Sobol <(E-Mail Removed)> 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/ (E-Mail Removed) Remove lock to reply.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
Wal-Mart's movie download plan: pay and pay again Modemac DVD Video 23 12-08-2006 02:40 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
The battle moves on from why pay for an OS to why pay for an application(database) thing2 NZ Computing 40 02-18-2006 10:35 PM



Advertisments