On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 14:41, Paul Tsai wrote: > C# is similar to Java than it is to C, and some people may argue that in > the future, C# may replace Java. Since C# is .NET, it requires a CLR > (or CLI, etc) to run its programs much in the same way Java requires a > virtual machine. However, .NET has a Just in Time compilator that is > able to covert code from CLR code (aka MSIL code, I will use MS names > from now on) to the machines native machine code, so it's slower than > Java the first time the program loads, but after the program is loaded, > performance is not really an issue, compared to Java being interpreted > thoughout the lifetime of the program, hence slower. There is much more > to C# and .NET if you are truely interested. Do a google or browse > MSDN, or the Mono Project's documentation.
Pretty much true, although I think that Java/C# are more likely to co-exist than for either to completely eradicate the other. C# has Microsoft's marketing muscle behind it, but Java has a large installed base, a large group of experienced developers, and many supporting products and libraries from commercial and open-source suppliers. But Java has had "just-in-time" compilation for many years now. In fact, it's had this feature for longer than C# has existed. And both can also be pre-compiled, similar to c/c++/etc. [NB: compiled java or C# is still not quite the same as compiled c/c++/etc, as even when precompiled they need some "runtime" support libs]. As an experienced Java developer who has also studied C#, I can say that learning either is a good idea. Once you know one, learning the other is a fairly small step. But as a first language, I would recommend Ruby or Python over anything else, Java or C# as a second choice, and "c" as a distant third or even later, unless you seriously intend to work on certain open-source projects that you know are written in "c". Regards, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
