«

On Mar 9, 4:11*pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> Logician wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 3:19 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> >> Logician wrote:
> >>> On Mar 9, 12:48 pm, Andrew Thompson <andrewtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 9, 10:16 pm, Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I am trying to write an interactive image which presents search
> >>>>> results in a tree structure. I see at many sites Java is used for
> >>>>> interactivion with images.
> >>>> Do you mean as in 'Java applets embedded
> >>>> in a web page?'.
> >>> I mean either an applet or a servlet, but via the WWW.
> >> Servlets are server side - applets are client side - for all
> >> practical purposes they can not replace each other.
>
> > This is a fine distinction (applet and servlet). My question is only -
> > Do so many people use Java for interactive images because it has
> > features not available in C#?
>
> My impression is that Flash would be most used for this with Java
> applets at a second place.
>
> And C# is not an option because .NET is not installed on all systems
> and not available at all for some systems.
>
> Arne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My understanding is that .NET only needs to be installed on the
server, so where is the issue with not all systems having .NET? I am
not seeking to sell the software, so other server systems have no
value to me.

On Mar 9, 4:54*pm, Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > Logician wrote:
> >> On Mar 9, 3:19 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> >>> Logician wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 9, 12:48 pm, Andrew Thompson <andrewtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 9, 10:16 pm, Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> I am trying to write an interactive image which presents search
> >>>>>> results in a tree structure. I see at many sites Java is used for
> >>>>>> interactivion with images.
> >>>>> Do you mean as in 'Java applets embedded
> >>>>> in a web page?'.
> >>>> I mean either an applet or a servlet, but via the WWW.
> >>> Servlets are server side - applets are client side - for all
> >>> practical purposes they can not replace each other.
>
> >> This is a fine distinction (applet and servlet). My question is only -
> >> Do so many people use Java for interactive images because it has
> >> features not available in C#?
>
> > My impression is that Flash would be most used for this with Java
> > applets at a second place.
>
> > And C# is not an option because .NET is not installed on all systems
> > and not available at all for some systems.
>
> Java is at least as rich as C# for server-side implementations of such
> functionality. *JSP are like .aspx, sort of. *Java server-side also integrates
> well with scripting languages like Javascript. *Libraries based on AJAX, JSF
> (Java Server Faces) and other frameworks provide a rich set of graphical and
> quasi-graphical interactions, dynamically and statically. *The trend is toward
> greater cooperation of client-side and server-side actions to make for a rich
> experience. *One needn't rely on a browser having plugins for Flash, Java or
> anything else beyond HTML and Javascript.

Javascript is disabled on several browsers especially on computers
running at large companies (a security measure).
>
> Arne's assessment seems accurate for strictly client-side graphical
> interaction. *Flex seems to be getting some attention also.
>

I was under the impression that Java has some classes which made it
more suited to graphical work, since everyone talks of Java in
reference to 3D, 360 images, and interactive imnages.

> --
> Lew- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Mar 9, 4:09*pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> Logician wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 3:36 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> >> Logician wrote:
> >>> I am trying to write an interactive image which presents search
> >>> results in a tree structure. I see at many sites Java is used for
> >>> interactivion with images.
> >>> I would like any views from Java developers why Java is used over C#
> >>> as that will help me decide what language to use. I code normally in
> >>> C# but I know some Java. C# allows Mouse events and the (x,y)
> >>> positions can be used, so it seems easy enough to use C# for image
> >>> interaction, or even just events for a TextBox which is placed on the
> >>> screen after the Text is created by the program.
> >> For code running client side it does matter that Java is
> >> more cross platform.
>
> > What are you saying exactly, that .aspx will not work if the client
> > has non-Windows software such as UNIX?
>
> No.
>
> .aspx runs server side.
>
> Arne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That was my point, so I did not understand the selling point of Java
as being more cross platform, since .NET will run on the server and
render a page.

I see VC# as much easier and more powerful in terms of actual coding
as the IDE is really powerful. So for me the only real issue is one of
graphics classes and if Java has more powerful graphics classes and
therefore the image interaction I envisage is more able to be done.

I will develop this in Java is I think Java is more suitable, but
people seem to be saying that the selling point of Java is its cross
platform applicability.

Logician wrote:
> On Mar 9, 4:09 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> Logician wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 3:36 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> Logician wrote:
>>>>> I am trying to write an interactive image which presents search
>>>>> results in a tree structure. I see at many sites Java is used for
>>>>> interactivion with images.
>>>>> I would like any views from Java developers why Java is used over C#
>>>>> as that will help me decide what language to use. I code normally in
>>>>> C# but I know some Java. C# allows Mouse events and the (x,y)
>>>>> positions can be used, so it seems easy enough to use C# for image
>>>>> interaction, or even just events for a TextBox which is placed on the
>>>>> screen after the Text is created by the program.
>>>> For code running client side it does matter that Java is
>>>> more cross platform.
>>> What are you saying exactly, that .aspx will not work if the client
>>> has non-Windows software such as UNIX?
>> No.
>>
>> .aspx runs server side.
>
> That was my point, so I did not understand the selling point of Java
> as being more cross platform, since .NET will run on the server and
> render a page.

The cross platform is a point for applet, because applet run
client side.

(cross platform can also be a point for server side because you can
freely choose production platform)

> I see VC# as much easier and more powerful in terms of actual coding
> as the IDE is really powerful.

Hm.

The Java IDE's has been leading in relation to features like refactoring
for 5+ years.

Arne

Logician wrote:
> On Mar 9, 4:11 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> Logician wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 3:19 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> Logician wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 9, 12:48 pm, Andrew Thompson <andrewtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 9, 10:16 pm, Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I am trying to write an interactive image which presents search
>>>>>>> results in a tree structure. I see at many sites Java is used for
>>>>>>> interactivion with images.
>>>>>> Do you mean as in 'Java applets embedded
>>>>>> in a web page?'.
>>>>> I mean either an applet or a servlet, but via the WWW.
>>>> Servlets are server side - applets are client side - for all
>>>> practical purposes they can not replace each other.
>>> This is a fine distinction (applet and servlet). My question is only -
>>> Do so many people use Java for interactive images because it has
>>> features not available in C#?
>> My impression is that Flash would be most used for this with Java
>> applets at a second place.
>>
>> And C# is not an option because .NET is not installed on all systems
>> and not available at all for some systems.
>
> My understanding is that .NET only needs to be installed on the
> server, so where is the issue with not all systems having .NET?

Not true if you are you are looking for client side technology
as Java applets.

(but oviously HTML generated by ASP.NET does not require .NET
client side)

Arne

Logician wrote:
> On Mar 9, 4:54 pm, Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Logician wrote:
>>>> On Mar 9, 3:19 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>> Logician wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 9, 12:48 pm, Andrew Thompson <andrewtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 10:16 pm, Logician <sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am trying to write an interactive image which presents search
>>>>>>>> results in a tree structure. I see at many sites Java is used for
>>>>>>>> interactivion with images.
>>>>>>> Do you mean as in 'Java applets embedded
>>>>>>> in a web page?'.
>>>>>> I mean either an applet or a servlet, but via the WWW.
>>>>> Servlets are server side - applets are client side - for all
>>>>> practical purposes they can not replace each other.
>>>> This is a fine distinction (applet and servlet). My question is only -
>>>> Do so many people use Java for interactive images because it has
>>>> features not available in C#?
>>> My impression is that Flash would be most used for this with Java
>>> applets at a second place.
>>> And C# is not an option because .NET is not installed on all systems
>>> and not available at all for some systems.
>> Java is at least as rich as C# for server-side implementations of such
>> functionality. JSP are like .aspx, sort of. Java server-side also integrates
>> well with scripting languages like Javascript. Libraries based on AJAX, JSF
>> (Java Server Faces) and other frameworks provide a rich set of graphical and
>> quasi-graphical interactions, dynamically and statically. The trend is toward
>> greater cooperation of client-side and server-side actions to make for a rich
>> experience. One needn't rely on a browser having plugins for Flash, Java or
>> anything else beyond HTML and Javascript.
>
> Javascript is disabled on several browsers especially on computers
> running at large companies (a security measure).

In todays AJAX world browsers with JavaScript disabled would be useless
for so many things, that I would not worry about that.

Arne

Lew wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> My impression is that Flash would be most used for this with Java
>> applets at a second place.

> Arne's assessment seems accurate for strictly client-side graphical
> interaction. Flex seems to be getting some attention also.

I am not an expert in Adobe technology.

But my impression was that Flex build on top of Flash.

Arne

Logician wrote:

> Javascript is disabled on several browsers especially on computers
> running at large companies (a security measure).

I run with Javascript disabled, and I can't load most Flash images as
well as many types of media (YouTube, etc.) JavaScript is used to start
up the process.

If you had a C# based solution, I imagine it would have the same problem
-- it wouldn't run because the JavaScript starter would not execute.

Logician wrote:

> My understanding is that .NET only needs to be installed on the
> server, so where is the issue with not all systems having .NET? I am
> not seeking to sell the software, so other server systems have no
> value to me.

You missed the point. You users may be running Macs or Linux machines
without any .Net at all. I think .Net is available, but I can't see it
being a common install for those system.

If you are just sending HTML to the client, then nothing needs to be
installed on the client -- no Java for applets, no .Net, no JavaScript.

Mark Space wrote:
> Logician wrote:
>> Javascript is disabled on several browsers especially on computers
>> running at large companies (a security measure).
>
> I run with Javascript disabled, and I can't load most Flash images as
> well as many types of media (YouTube, etc.) JavaScript is used to start
> up the process.
>
> If you had a C# based solution, I imagine it would have the same problem
> -- it wouldn't run because the JavaScript starter would not execute.

Client side .NET can be put in using a pure object tag.

Arne

PS: I find it difficult to understand why people would allow Java, .NET
and Flash but not JavaScript.