3 ms·
I'm not sure I'd consider performance a big difference. Their performance is generally very close, and if you're in a situation to care enough about performance
by bunderbunder 11y ago
I'm not sure I'd consider performance a big difference. Their performance is generally very close, and if you're in a situation to care enough about performance to split hairs then you really shouldn't be using a managed platform in the first place.
The _real_ big difference is that Java has an enormous open source ecosystem, whereas much of what .NET has is ports or clones of successful Java projects.
That said, I think .NET's probably the better choice for a lot of line-of-business applications simply because the tooling allows for very rapid development of that sort of stuff, and not having easy access to Hadoop or Akka really isn't much of a handicap when you're mostly just banging out a mess of business rules.
- jcranmer 11y agoThe title implies that it's comparing the runtime engines, and the performance is absolutely a major selling point of any such comparison, even if the practical effect of any difference is negligible. Ultimately, the comparison claims to be between the CLR and the JVM while it's more like between C# and Java, given how it only covers fairly superficial features at the front-end level and not what can and can't be done in VM code, let alone how different VM architectures can have major impacts on code design, etc.
- bunderbunder 11y agoI think the reason for this particular list is that it's from the standpoint of a programming language implementation team, and one that's currently working on targeting a 2nd platform. Given that, it reads as a list of what the VM can do for you and what you'll need to do yourself in the compiler.
- shrewduser 11y agoperformance is still important and a big selling point of the JVM