I just got a mail from a fellow MVP. One of his friends were in the process of deciding whether they need to use .NET or Java. His set of questions were so like the ones that I answer normally, that I thought I would blog it here....
1) The .NET framework serves little purpose for a CD-ROM-distributed product, that may run on one machine / the local LAN at a customer's premises.
ME: .NET supports a run from directory sort of programs with most of the config information in XML files. But again this depends on what you need to do. But Java again does the same. So I dont see java having any distinct advantage here.
2) There are open-source free software including databases, which require no licensing fees.
.NET Framework itself is free of cost. MSDE is a good alternative for a database. Or if you want to use MySQL, there are managed drivers avbl for that too.
3) The costs of developing in Java is lower, both in terms of costs of development software and the availablity of skilled manpower working with legal products.
Well have you ever checked the cost of Websphere or WebLogic. Well if you thinking of JBoss, not many enterprises will use JBoss without backup support, which costs money. In terms of developer productivity then you are very much wrong. .NET lets you get your program up and running way faster and at lower cost.
4) The availability of skilled manpower, on opensource software,opens up new models for providing support on a national level.
Well VB has the highest no. of developers according to statistics. Well most of them are moving to .NET. I see no shortage of skilled manpower for .NET.
Well, Opensource is another thing. Yes, Java has a lot of opensource stuff avbl. But most of the famous ones have .NET equivalents. Some don't. If one of those is a must for you, you have two options. Be the one to start off a .NET equivalent or pick java. But be clear on why you choose Java(only becoz that project was must for you to work).
5) Java is a more stable platfrom as compared to .Net, which is fairly new and designed to mimic J2EE.
Well in a sense yes, Java has been around longer. But then .NET has been very stable in the last 1 year it has been around. I remember how bad the first version of Java was, but the first version of .NET has been very very good. If the no. of years is important, why not look at C/C++?? (Well Basic has been there longer, so VB.NET may be the best option.. I could'nt control myself...:-))
6) With a price-point of around Rs.20,000, the product is targeted at the mass market. The costs of entry is significantly lower with Java, than with a .NET solution. At the very least, customers would be required to invest in a .NET-compliant server, resulting in investments in both hardware and OS. With Java, the CDROM can ship with the necessary frameworks, for free, such as Apache, Struts or JBoss, and installation can be made seamless.
What is it that is making .NET costly. A Windows license will cover most of the things you need to run a .NET app.
7) Java is becoming increasingly pervasive on mobile devices, with most major manufacturers suppporting the standard. The wireless offering you are proposing will be easier with a Java solution,
rather than having to force customers to purchase the relatively fewer Microsoft-compliant handheld devices.
Well yes, but have you looked MMIT or the compact framework..
8) The development team is being formed from scratch. Existing developers can easily move to the Java platform, at the application development level
Well a VB developer moving to VB.NET is a no brainer. C to C# is even easier...:-)
Well talking of stability going back to .NET Beta 1 days, there was a project that was done for US Navy and Marine Corps on Beta 1 of the 1.0 Framework and was then moved to Beta 2 and then the final release where it is functioning in top-notch condition. Need I say more???!!!
Posted by: Martin Johnson | August 08, 2003 at 03:55 AM
The .net platform certainly is native to windows, but consider this: The most popular alternate platform Linux is not by any means standard and doesnt hold 5% of the OS market, and would be a mistake to target these people for sale potential. Alternatly over 95% of that market is Windows and Users have to go out of their way installing another platform where software is not optimized for this OS?
Posted by: John | August 09, 2003 at 02:13 AM