Talk:Comparison of C Sharp and Java: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:00, 3 July 2005

Latest revision as of 17:10, 30 July 2025

(790 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{User:MiszaBot/config

How does Java have a simpler language? The CLR has some JIT time optimizations as well as runtiem optimizations. Java and C# run at about the same speed really. It might not be true that Java is faster.

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 3

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Comparison of C Sharp and Java/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|

{{WikiProject Java |importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Computing |auto=}}

}}

{{Archives |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months }}

{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[Arbitrary-precision arithmetic#Arbitrary-precision software|software for arbitrary-precision arithmetic]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Arbitrary-precision software) [[Special:Diff/633704642|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Arbitrary-precision software","appear":{"revid":33896264,"parentid":33891953,"timestamp":"2006-01-04T22:34:11Z","removed_section_titles":["Uses","Software examples"],"added_section_titles":["Applications","Algorithms","Arbitrary-precision software"]},"disappear":{"revid":633704642,"parentid":632305701,"timestamp":"2014-11-13T19:24:31Z","removed_section_titles":["Arbitrary-precision software","Libraries","Stand-alone application software","Languages"],"added_section_titles":["Software libraries"]}} -->

}}

== Modules ==

The article needs to be cleaned a bit... Some entries are listed as both advantages for one language and disadvantages for the other, which is at best redundant. Otherwise, it's not bad; quite complete now. [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] 22:49, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

A section is missing: what are the differences between java's packages and C#'s public/internal visibility keywords on namespace members (which end up correlating with the CLR's modules and assemblies). [[User:Bohan|Bohan]] ([[User talk:Bohan|talk]]) 12:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there is good reason for pointers to be listed as both an advantage and a disadvantage for C#. I don't think there exists enough consensus about whether pointers should be used in managed languages. It might be appropriate to go into more detail about how pointers are implemented with relative safety in C# on another page and then link it. [[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 05:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Type inference / manifested ==

I've decided it belongs in differences after all. [[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 05:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At least C# supports basic type inference support: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/479883/how-good-is-the-c-sharp-type-inference [[User:ShalokShalom|ShalokShalom]] ([[User talk:ShalokShalom|talk]])

* Both languages allow the use of enumerations, via the <code>enum</code> keyword.

== Comparing Stream API and LINQ ==

As far as I recall, this is false. C# uses the <code>enum</code> keyword, whereas Java uses a Class ([http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Enum.html link java.lang.Enum]) introduced in Java 1.5. I haven't edited the page to reflect this, as I am unsure and would like confirmation first.

There is a paragraph for LINQ but not for the Java Stream API. Comparing them would be more consistent with the rest of the article. I might add this part in the future but don't have time right now <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.79.34.38|141.79.34.38]] ([[User talk:141.79.34.38#top|talk]]) 23:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

In Java 5.0 enums are lower case, like types, and have their own syntax.

<code>

private enum Coin {

penny(1), nickel(5), dime(10), quarter(25);

Coin(int value) { this.value = value; }

private final int value;

public int value() { return value; }

}

</code>

Also enums can be used in switches. Classes cannot be used this way.

<code>

switch(menu) {

case FILE:

System.out.println("FILE Menu");

break;

case EDIT:

System.out.println("EDIT Menu");

break;

case FORMAT:

System.out.println("FORMAT Menu");

break;

case VIEW:

System.out.println("VIEW Menu");

break;

}

</code>

Check out

http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/releases/j2se15langfeat/

http://zamples.com/JspExplorer/samples/jdk1_5.jsp

http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/enums.html

In Java even arrays are technically classes ie

<code>

Object o = new int[10];

</code>

Further compiling:

<code>

public class Test {

private int enum = 10;

}

</code>

Yields the error:

<code>

Test.java:2: as of release 1.5, 'enum' is a keyword, and may not be used as an identifier

(try -source 1.4 or lower to use 'enum' as an identifier)

private int enum = 10;

^

1 error

</code>

My inclination is to call it a keyword, because of the new syntax, and the compiler error.

[[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 04:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

: Yeah, it seems pretty clear that <code>enum</tt> is a keyword in Java. [[User:Neilc|Neilc]] 01:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keyword or not, <code>enum</code> is a feature of all (or nearly all?) programming languages in the C language family, and as such is uninteresting in this context. I've deleted the reference, hope that's OK... [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] 12:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

== Virtual machine? ==

C# is compiled to MSIL which is compiled into native machine code; Java is compiled into .class files which are interpreted by the JVM. The article says they both run on a virtual machine, but C# does not. I ran a series of benchmarks which I posted [http://mathcs.blogspot.com/2005/04/java-vs-net.html here] and am quite sure that C# is appreciably faster than Java.

Both C# and Java use [[Just-in-time compilation|JIT compilation]]. Java can run in interpretted mode and even has a flag for it

java -Xint, but java -Xmixed (interpretted mode mixed with compilation) is the default. You might want to try rerunning your benchmark with java -server -Xincgc -Xmx512M and Java 1.5 [[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 01:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, looking at your benchmarks they are quite clearly dominated by Java's slow startup time. You might consider benchmarks that run for atleast a minute. Compare your results with [[http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5602]] at that time Java was outprerforming C# in every area except trig performance, but things may have changed since then. [[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 01:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I tried to repeat your benchmark. Here's what I found:

cat Test.java

public class Test {

public static void main(String[] args) {

long time = System.currentTimeMillis();

for(int i = 1; i < 1000000000; i++) {

}

System.out.println((System.currentTimeMillis() - time));

}

}

java -hotspot Test

1612

java -server Test

3

[[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 03:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Event Handling? ==

I'm not sure if your observation is correct about event handling. In java one ActionListener can listen to many different UI elements. I think that the net result is the same as in C#, and that the difference is really semantic. [[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 02:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this link supports my point: [[http://www.javacamp.org/javavscsharp/eventhandler.html]]

--Agreed, the only difference between the use of event handling in Java vs C# is simply an overloaded operator. --capnmidnight

== Method invocation of Java is simpler than C#? ==

The article states about Java:

"Method invocation model is simpler, making it easier to implement and at times easier to read."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the difference between<br>

''javaObject.methodCall()''<br>

and<br>

''csharpObject.methodCall()''<br>

Am I missing something? Maybe you are talking about the "best practice" of capitalizing method names. This is not a feature of C# any more than creating meaningful variable names, or using for loops instead of while loops, i.e. it's up to programmer preference.

"C# includes delegates, whereas Java does not. Some argue that delegates are extremely useful, but others point out that their inclusion complicates the method invocation model." This is what that line was refering to. I didn't understand it when I read it either, so I changed it. Hopefully, it is clearer now. [[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 05:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:What do you understand by "method invocation ''model''"? Is it compile-time or run-time? If you say compile-time, I agree, the same syntax/grammar is used to call a delegate and to call a single method. If you say run-time, I disagree, because by then it will either iterate the delegate OR call the method, it won't decide which to do at run-time because that's already hard-coded. So, you MUST clear which do you mean, compile-time or run-time. I suggest renaming it to "method invocation syntax", assuming compile-time since in run-time it's nonsense to say it's simpler in Java.

::Did you read the link at the bottom of the discussion? [[http://blog.monstuff.com/archives/000037.html#more]] The author has evidence that delegates use relfection implicitly, and that they are not simply pointers to functions. If you can produce some disassembly that disagrees with his results, or can explain his results, I would be very interested.

--In that case, delegates don't ''complicate'' the model, they ''expand'' the model. One can completely ignore delegates and still be a quite succesful coder in C#. I think it gives a false impression that C# is more difficult to learn than Java. While it will certainly take you longer to learn ''completely'' (since there are more language-level features in C#), base functionality in both languages is a nearly identical task.

If anything, if we define a task T that is particularly suited to being implemented with a delegate pattern, then Java is technically more complicated. One would have to use a lot of interfaces, annonymous inner classes, and the Reflection API to achieve all the same things that delegates achieve very easily. I shudder to think of the ugly hack that would result from trying to reimplement delegate concatenation in Java.

This is the same arguement that C zealots make against C++, that C++'s inclusion of additional keywords made it a more complicated, and more difficult to learn. It's just not true, more language features make languages ''easier''. We invent new langauges to make our jobs as programmers easier, not to make them more difficult. Imagine if your speaking vocabulary were cut in half, would you be able to express yourself as easily?

Delegates are there if you know how to use them, and they sit out of the way if you don't. They're not there at all in Java, so even if you know how to use them, you're out of luck.

--capn_midnight

I think the criticism is that determining which method is actually called at run-time more complicated, and can incur a performance hit. Check this out [[http://blog.monstuff.com/archives/000037.html#more]], but I guess all OO features are more complicated than just calling static function. [[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 13:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Switching Strings ==

Just throwing a question out there: should we mention that C# allows for strings to be used in switch statements? It is a minor feature, but it is a difference. Does Java have this yet? [[User:DoomBringer|DoomBringer]] 08:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

:Java does not support switching on strings. It seems like a minor feature to me though. Also, does C# support just switching on Strings, or switching on all Objects? [[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] 13:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

::''C# Language Specification'' lists "possible governing types" of a switch statement as: sbyte, byte, short, ushort, int, uint, long, ulong, char, string. Switching on strings would thus be the only difference compared to Java. Not a groundbreaking feature, but it's very useful nonetheless... [[User:GregorB|GregorB]] 11:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

:::I would say that it is a noteworthy feature. Any neato feature like that prevents me from doing a huge if-elseif-... construct, which can get ugly. The claim was made that switching on a string in C# isn't as horrible for performance as some would think, but I don't know the underlying implementation, so I can't say for sure. I just know that I like being able to switch on strings. [[User:DoomBringer|DoomBringer]] 07:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added it, since no one had any issues here. If you feel otherwise, post something here first.

== ROTOR mention? ==

Should we mention the ROTOR implementation of the CLI? You can run .NET code on BSD Unix (I think), and it is "shared source". It isn't a feasible enterprise solution, as I think the license prohibits it, IIRC. [[User:DoomBringer|DoomBringer]] 07:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

== Call by reference ==

Note that call by reference doesn't apply just to primitive types, as it might seem at first sight. Variables in Java which are not of primitive types hold a reference to an instance, and since all method calls pass arguments by value, the reference held by the variable is passed, since that is the value of the variable. But imagine you want the variable to "point" to another instance after the method returns; then you have to pass a reference to the variable itself, not the reference the variable holds.

A non-pragmatic but straight example in C#:

void ChangeVariable(ref string s) {

s = "-+" + s + "+-";

}

void SeeChange() {

string s = "Test";

ChangeVariable(ref s);

Console.WriteLine(s);

}

Output:

-+Test+-

I see your point. Perhaps a better example is:

void ChangeVariable(ref string s) {

s = "Test";

}

void SeeChange() {

string s;

ChangeVariable(ref s);

Console.WriteLine(s);

}

The point is that Java lacks what would be "<class_type>** name" style pointers to pointers in C++.

[[User:Tbjablin|Tbjablin]] July 3, 2005 04:48 (UTC)