«

Ive got an idea that Im going to develop into an application.
this will be a GUI type application which will be given away freely to users
to install on their PCs. The application interacts with other users on the
internet via SSL.


The problem with java is still the 16MB ish download time. I only know java
myself but intend to get somebody else to develop it in C++ rather than have
a big download.

Should I use C++ or java ?

patrick

On Jan 27, 11:38 pm, "patrick" <network...@eircom.net> wrote:
...
> The problem with java is still the 16MB ish download time.

Most people nowadays have the Java Plug-In
already, so it will only be a few that would
need to download it.

>..I only know java
> myself but intend to get somebody else to develop it in C++ rather than have
> a big download.
>
> Should I use C++ or java ?

If you want to support PC's running OS's,
I'd stick with Java Swing, deployed using
web-start.

If you only need to support Windows based
PC's, .NET would probably get the job done
quite efficiently, and hook easily into the
Windows GUI toolkit (I guess).

Why would you want to use C++?
(Are there good, free C++ GUI toolkits
available?)

Andrew T.

On Jan 27, 7:12 pm, "Andrew Thompson" <andrewtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:38 pm, "patrick" <network...@eircom.net> wrote:
> ..
>
> > The problem with java is still the 16MB ish download time.Most people nowadays have the Java Plug-In
> already, so it will only be a few that would
> need to download it.
>
> >..I only know java
> > myself but intend to get somebody else to develop it in C++ rather than have
> > a big download.
>
> > Should I use C++ or java ?If you want to support PC's running OS's,
> I'd stick with Java Swing, deployed using
> web-start.
>
> If you only need to support Windows based
> PC's, .NET would probably get the job done
> quite efficiently, and hook easily into the
> Windows GUI toolkit (I guess).
>
> Why would you want to use C++?
> (Are there good, free C++ GUI toolkits
> available?)
>
> Andrew T.

Java J2ee Interview Questions
http://javaj2ee-interview-questions.blogspot.com/

"patrick" wrote:
>>> Should I use C++ or java ?

wrote:
> Java J2ee Interview Questions
> http://javaj2ee-interview-questions.blogspot.com/

How would that sloppy, ungrammatical and incomplete presentation in any way
help with the OP's question?

Quite aside from its manifest flaws as a source of Java knowledge, it has
nothing about comparisons to C++, or even C#.

- Lew

patrick wrote:
> Ive got an idea that Im going to develop into an application.
> this will be a GUI type application which will be given away freely to users
> to install on their PCs. The application interacts with other users on the
> internet via SSL.
>
> The problem with java is still the 16MB ish download time. I only know java
> myself but intend to get somebody else to develop it in C++ rather than have
> a big download.
>
> Should I use C++ or java ?

Both GUI and SSL can be coded in far less lines of code in Java than
in C++.

The Java version will be platform independent.

It would say Java is worth the download.

Arne

"patrick" <> wrote in message
news:HJHuh.17684$...
> Ive got an idea that Im going to develop into an application.
> this will be a GUI type application which will be given away freely to
> users to install on their PCs. The application interacts with other users
> on the internet via SSL.
>
>
> The problem with java is still the 16MB ish download time. I only know
> java myself but intend to get somebody else to develop it in C++ rather
> than have a big download.
>
> Should I use C++ or java ?

If the only reason that you are considering C++ is because of the JRE (which
people should have anyway) then the answer should be fairly clear: Use
Java.

--
LTP

People DONT have the jre. there are many people with only dial ups.
broadband is not everywhere.And it is still slow on broadband.
Big downloads are still a problem.
I am inlined to think the critical thing here is download time if you want
people to download and use the app.
So C++ may be the best way to go.
patrick


"Luc The Perverse" <> wrote in message
news:mums84-...
> "patrick" <> wrote in message
> news:HJHuh.17684$...
>> Ive got an idea that Im going to develop into an application.
>> this will be a GUI type application which will be given away freely to
>> users to install on their PCs. The application interacts with other users
>> on the internet via SSL.
>>
>>
>> The problem with java is still the 16MB ish download time. I only know
>> java myself but intend to get somebody else to develop it in C++ rather
>> than have a big download.
>>
>> Should I use C++ or java ?
>
> If the only reason that you are considering C++ is because of the JRE
> (which people should have anyway) then the answer should be fairly clear:
> Use Java.
>
> --
> LTP
>
>
>

"patrick" <> wrote in message
news:TVOuh.17688$...
> People DONT have the jre. there are many people with only dial ups.
> broadband is not everywhere.And it is still slow on broadband.
> Big downloads are still a problem.
> I am inlined to think the critical thing here is download time if you want
> people to download and use the app.
> So C++ may be the best way to go.
> patrick

All engineering is a trade-off. A slow initial download of the JRE (if they
don't already have it) could be a problem. But not for the ones that do have
it, though. Then you have the issue of platform independence. It is easier
to get Java to run on a MAC, Windows, Linux, Solaris, HP-UX than it is with
C++, especially if the app has a GUI. Native C++ will run a little bit
faster on it's target platform than Java will, but most wild claims about
poor Java performance are unsupportable.

patrick wrote:
> The problem with java is still the 16MB ish download time. I only know java

The online install is usually around 10MB. The 16MB figure is when you
download the install file. This contains a copy of Microsoft's
installation engine adding about 5MB on top of the real size of the Java
install. The online install avoids this by checking to see if you
already have the installer and if so skips downloading it.

Mark Thornton

"patrick" <> wrote in message
news:TVOuh.17688$...
> People DONT have the jre. there are many people with only dial ups.
> broadband is not everywhere.And it is still slow on broadband.
> Big downloads are still a problem.
> I am inlined to think the critical thing here is download time if you want
> people to download and use the app.
> So C++ may be the best way to go.
> patrick

I'm not sure who your target audience is- but in general people who
proactively seek out applications to download and install are the more tech
savvy who will predominantly have installed the JRE and have higher speed
connections.

You will not get out of problems with dependencies that easily either. How
big is the .NET framework for instance? (A rhetorical question) I would
say that people who do not have the JRE would likely not have the latest
..NET framework either.

Assuming you are using a Microsoft compiler, you could elect to avoid using
..NET or MFC altogether - but that is going to put you in a difficult
position to write an application, since you will be reinventing the wheel -
particularly for your SSL tunnels etc.

Or, my personal suggestion - you could do what everyone does, and use the
easiest tools to develop with, particularly if you are already familiar with
them and if someone can't use your product because they refuse to install
the JRE (or .NET or whatever) then so be it.

If you do write it in C++ I suggest isolating your system independent
application "intelligence" from your GUI and networking code - this way, if
you later decide to port it to another platform your job will be greatly
facilitated (you could even make a Java "face" for your application with C++
backend and minimize rewriting of code.) Not to mention this is generally
a good idea anyway
--
LTP