Article:		A Visual J# .NET Primer
Subject:		you're kidding!
Date:		2001-10-16 07:04:18
From:		tjansto
just goes to show that a vb programmer can be easily impressed. this review certainly doesn't measure up to the standards i have come to expect from your company. j#.not is silly, and no java programmer, who makes their living writing enterprise solutions on java would even consider this as java. i am glad they didn't refer to java in the name of the product, as it is not java, either in form or intent. "syntax does not a platform make", to paraphrase.

Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.

• you're kidding!
  2001-10-16 10:37:06  | [View]
  
  
  As the editor of ONJava.com, it's my obligation to at least point out Java features as well as Java derivatives, Java alternatives, etc. While J# is not even close to a viable option for writing enterprise applications, it's still out there for Java programmers who want to build 'simple' Java applications for Windows.
• you're kidding!
  2001-10-17 05:13:55  tjansto [View]
  
  
  i agree, and i apologize for the apparent sharpness of my response. but if that is the intent of the review, shouldn't the at be pointed out? as i said, o'reilly is a well respected source of information, but by not calling out that it is not viable for enterprise, (and i'm sure you and i are in disagreement about the legitimacy of it being used for 'simple' apps), folk may be encouraged to try to make it do things it can't because it doesn't adhere to the java platform, it reduces java to merely a language.
  again, i apologize, i typed quicker than i should have.
• Enterprise or Not? (was you're kidding!)
  2001-10-17 07:33:37  Brian Jepson | [View]
  
  
  I'm sorry that the article didn't go deeper, but it's just a first look at Visual J#. I pointed out that J# only supports JDK 1.1.4, and this should imply that J# is no replacement for Java 2.
  
  As for whether it's ready for the enterprise, that's the question of the hour. Is .NET itself ready for the enterprise? I think the answer is yes, but lots of people disagree. We really won't know until the final version is released, and people start talking about their experiences building enterprise apps on .NET.
  
  As for J# reducing Java to a language, I partially disagree. There are three key components to the Java platform: the JVM, the SDK, and the Java language. J# supports the language (albeit a mutated version of it) and an obsolete version of the SDK. And of course, it does not support the JVM. The net result is that J# itself is no replacement for Java 2.
  
  But I think Microsoft's initial goal with J# is to support Visual J++ users, and nothing more than that. However, I think that Microsoft will take J# beyond that. Now that they have a clean-room implementation of Java 1.1.4 to start with, can Java 2 language and SDK compatibility be far off? There is nothing to stop them if they proceed in a clean-room fashion.
  
  - Brian
• Enterprise or Not? (was you're kidding!)
  2001-10-17 08:15:18  cfrye [View]
  
  
  I agree with your "question of the hour". The point is not whether J# is Java 2 or not. The point is - is J# a viable entry point into the .NET platform for people who prefer a Java-like syntax.
  
  If we want to compare anything with Java 2, we should compare Java 2 to .NET as a whole (more precisely the ".NET Framework").
  
  P.S. Even as a self-described J2EE bigot, I am having difficulty maintaining that position in light of some initial experimentation I am doing with the .NET Framework. I am having a lot of trouble finding fault with the .NET Framework conceptually.