# what is easy? .NET? or JAVA?



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

I am gonna ask some kind of a different question.

I am in JAVA track, and most of friends in university says, if JAVA is gonna be more hard, they will definitely jump to .NET track (Fortunately, still I don't have that situation ). Even our senior students in .NET track says they selected .NET because JAVA is too hard. My question is , is .NET really easy compared to JAVA??????? if it is why is that? (Anyhow my personal idea is, if you do something with enough effort, then there is nothing hard. But I really want to know the truth.).. If .NET is easier than JAVA, then I can study BOTH!


----------



## calvin-c (May 17, 2006)

There seems to be a fairly common belief that the language is what makes programming either hard or easy. IMO that's not true. What makes programming either hard or easy are the tools you use. Some tools are definitely easier to use than others. I've done little work in Java so the only 'tool' I've used is a text editor. That makes Java considerably harder, for me, than .Net where I use Visual Studio with all the Intellisense, object browsers, etc. But that's the tool-I've also done some .Net programming with a text editor & that was just as hard, IMO, as Java.

One thing that makes programming easy or hard, irrespective of the tools, is how well you learn the basics. Despite what they tell you about objects, if you don't really know what an object does with the inputs you give it then sooner or later that lack of knowledge will bite you. One rule I give beginning programmers is to simplify. Pick a couple of objects/classes & really learn how to use them-then add more. If you try to learn all the objects at once (e.g. to make your programs efficient or 'elegant') then you'll find the 'language' to be very hard to learn. But if you start simply, learning the basics & then building, it doesn't really matter which language you use.


----------



## Ent (Apr 11, 2009)

Remember that there are other considerations than ease of programming that make you decide to go for a specific language. For example Java remains more cross-platform than .Net, the latter will only work on Windows machines. Java is a feature on the web, whereas .net isn't. I agree with you; I want to learn as much as I can, and that means not restricting myself to any single tool.

While Calvin-C's point about the environment is very significant, I think the language itself does play a part. In particular if you already know a similar language one will be far easier to pick up. I was first introduced to programming in QBasic, so VB.net was immediately easy for me to learn and I stuck with it. I looked at Java, but decided to leave it for a bit later on. Contrawise I suspect that someone familiar with C would find Java easier to learn. However this is confused by the fact that there is no one .net programming language: for example VB, and C# are both used within the .net programming environment.

I also have a sneaky feeling that it's easier to be spoiled and learn to program really badly in .net, because you can bang together the components that Microsoft gives you without really knowing or caring where they come from.


That's my take at least.


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

I agree with both of you. Actually whenever we think something is HARD, then it automatically becomes HARD. Isn't it?


----------



## volatile (Aug 14, 2007)

Ent said:


> Remember that there are other considerations than ease of programming that make you decide to go for a specific language. For example Java remains more cross-platform than .Net, the latter will only work on Windows machines. Java is a feature on the web, whereas .net isn't. I agree with you; I want to learn as much as I can, and that means not restricting myself to any single tool.
> 
> While Calvin-C's point about the environment is very significant, I think the language itself does play a part. In particular if you already know a similar language one will be far easier to pick up. I was first introduced to programming in QBasic, so VB.net was immediately easy for me to learn and I stuck with it. I looked at Java, but decided to leave it for a bit later on. Contrawise I suspect that someone familiar with C would find Java easier to learn. However this is confused by the fact that there is no one .net programming language: for example VB, and C# are both used within the .net programming environment.
> 
> ...


Just wanted to point out ASP.NET and Silverlight for the webby .NET aspect.


----------



## DaBeers (Oct 31, 2008)

There is also the fact that C# and Java are so much alike it's insulting. Given the choice, I program in VB or C# .Net, but Java programming in Eclipse is just as productive and enabling.


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

> There is also the fact that C# and Java are so much alike it's insulting. Given the choice, I program in VB or C# .Net, but Java programming in Eclipse is just as productive and enabling.


I also like C#..


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

I can't install MS C# Express edition bcs it always fails to install SQL 2008 express. So is there are any software I can use rather than this C# software?


----------



## DoubleHelix (Dec 10, 2004)

If you're going to code, you should get a modern computer that's up to the task. I see you're running Windows XP SP2. Time to upgrade. Get something powerful enough to run virtualization software, and then you can test your programs on various platforms.


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

Ya, My hardware is powerful but I am having sp2. I got W7 Ultimate, but I can't install it(No direct upgrade from XP, isn't it?) until my project and exams finished.


----------



## DoubleHelix (Dec 10, 2004)

You don't want to do an upgrade in place from XP to 7. You want to do a clean install. Your specs list 4GB of RAM, so you'll want to install the 64-bit version of Windows 7 so the system can actually use all the RAM.


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

> You don't want to do an upgrade in place from XP to 7. You want to do a clean install. Your specs list 4GB of RAM, so you'll want to install the 64-bit version of Windows 7 so the system can actually use all the RAM.


That's what I said..If there is an upgrade I can do it, no prob. But a clean install means I have to format my C: and install. Just for now, it will be a mess if I do so.

Actually I can't install C# software provided by MS, not because of the SP2. I installed it once and removed it. Then when I try to install it again, it crashes!! I tried to remove the registries, but mistakenly I removed both SQL 2008 EXPRESS and SQL 2000 registries!!! Now both are not working


----------



## JimmySeal (Sep 25, 2007)

DoubleHelix said:


> You don't want to do an upgrade in place from XP to 7. You want to do a clean install. Your specs list 4GB of RAM, so you'll want to install the 64-bit version of Windows 7 so the system can actually use all the RAM.


A 32-bit OS can address 4GB of RAM. It's anything beyond that that requires 64-bit.


----------



## DaBeers (Oct 31, 2008)

You could run a dual boot. It's a little tricky because you will have to rebuild your BCD, but there is plenty of info one the web that will show you how. When I did a XP and Vista dual boot, there were already free tools for the BCD that really helped. I'm sure there will be some for 7 too.


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

> You could run a dual boot. It's a little tricky because you will have to rebuild your BCD, but there is plenty of info one the web that will show you how. When I did a XP and Vista dual boot, there were already free tools for the BCD that really helped. I'm sure there will be some for 7 too.


Perfect Idea!! but, errrr, just the dual boot wont work?? Rather than the BCD stuffs?


----------



## JimmySeal (Sep 25, 2007)

DaBeers said:


> I'm sure there will be some for 7 too.


FYI EasyBCD works for Windows 7, apparently.



DoubleHelix said:


> You don't want to do an upgrade in place from XP to 7. You want to do a clean install.


Might I ask why that is? Seems to me like a sensible thing to do.


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DoubleHelix*
> _You don't want to do an upgrade in place from XP to 7. You want to do a clean install._
> 
> Might I ask why that is? Seems to me like a sensible thing to do.


That is because No direct upgrade from XP to W7. If you need to upgrade, the you have to upgrade XP to VISTA then VISTA to W7!


----------



## DoubleHelix (Dec 10, 2004)

sepala said:


> That is because No direct upgrade from XP to W7. If you need to upgrade, the you have to upgrade XP to VISTA then VISTA to W7!


That's how you would do an in-place upgrade retaining all programs and settings. But you can do a "custom" upgrade install from XP to 7 which essentially results in a semi-"clean" install.


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

> That's how you would do an in-place upgrade retaining all programs and settings. But you can do a "custom" upgrade install from XP to 7 which essentially results in a semi-"clean" install.


DoubleHelix,
Could you please explain that? I didn't understand..If I can do something like that, THAT IS GREEEEAAAAAATT!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DoubleHelix (Dec 10, 2004)

Explain what? You put the Windows 7 disk in and install. If you're running Windows XP, your only choice will be a "custom" install which will wipe out the Windows XP installation including all data and programs. The Windows 7 disk walks through the whole process.


----------



## sepala (May 20, 2010)

> Explain what? You put the Windows 7 disk in and install. If you're running Windows XP, your only choice will be a "custom" install which will wipe out the Windows XP installation including all data and programs. The Windows 7 disk walks through the whole process.


ahhhhhhhhh.....okok..I got that..I thought some other thing.


----------

