|
Which is available at this link: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yz2be5wk.aspx <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.66.101.171|71.66.101.171]] ([[User talk:71.66.101.171|talk]]) 01:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Page Is Irrelevent ==
Is Wikipedia in the business of providing competing product comparisons?
These are two proprietary products produced by competing corporations. The features in both products are subject to change based on the owners goals and marketing decisions without public input. Thus many of the details are volitile and the article will quickly go stale. There are already inaccuracies on both sides of the comparison some due to the age of the article and others intended to skew the article.
The features comparison colors the yes and no values green and red respectively. This is an immediate value judgement on the included of featues. Due to this red/green coloring a minority of the tables of features have more red boxes on the C# side than the Java side. A simple glance at this bias reveals an immediate inference that C# is better than Java, despite many of the features that are not in Java are conscious design decision by Sun/Oracle.
It could be said that Microsoft has taken a kitchen sink approach to language design while Sun/Oracle has taken a more measured approach to feature inclusion. This is implied by the discussion about keyword growth in Java vs C#. So, as a common comparing any two languages in computer science, feature count and quality of features are not relevent to language utility, inferiority, or superiority. Thus the red/green coloring is misleading and at times innaccurate.
Finally, the code samples are also misleading. All the code samples as displayed have a greater line count for Java than the 'equivelent' C# implying Java is more verbose. In the article this is true for multiple reasons. The algorithms are different. In the Input/output section the Java example uses buffered IO while the C# sample does not. The Java implementation uses a superfluous File object constructor on both input and output which is not necessary (Constuctors for FileReader and FileWriter exist with a String argument for a file path like C#). Also to make the IO buffered in the C# example would need a call to a BufferedReader and BufferedWriter constructor to bring the number of constructor calls between the two samples equal.
Similarly, the "Pass by Reference" uses style to increase the line count Java sample. First: The swap method adds a line of whitespace after the temporary variable initialization. Second: A three line comment is added above the main method in the Java example. Third: the output line at the end of the main method is split into two lines in the Java example while being syntactically identical. Finally, even more damning the example is chosen to show the differences in C# and Java while casting the Java in a bad light because it "still" has not changed the value of s. Another equally simple example can be chosen where C# does not produce the results expected.
These are just two of the examples of how code that is contended to be "equal" is used to show disadvantages in Java. There are more.
This page should be scrapped and not rewriten for the reasons stated at the top. If not scrapped is should be rewritten to remove biases noted above.
One last note, I make my living writing C# code.
The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and not the owner of this IP address.
:Seconded - this entire article is clearly VERY biased. [[User:EboMike|EboMike]] ([[User talk:EboMike|talk]]) 20:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
::Thirded... While something like this could be useful (and it actually did answer a question I was looking up), it is in no way encyclopedic in nature. Something like this belongs on a tech advice site like stackoverflow, not wikipedia. [[User:Potatman|Potatman]] ([[User talk:Potatman|talk]]) 16:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Fourthed. It's an unbalanced article, and it appears to be not consistent about trying to compare contemporaneous language specifications, a clear indication of poor research. (It doesn't belong on StackOverflow though; it would be ''rapidly'' closed as flamebait.) It's a shame, as a balanced comparison would be a genuinely useful thing, but I get the impression that most people preferring one or the other regard the trade-offs they are making as reasonable (assuming they don't go for outright language partisan fanboyism foolishness). Unfortunately, the proportion of ''academic'' — i.e., properly peer reviewed — references used is very small; having more independent voices describing the differences would be helpful here because of the languages' shared history. Or the core language designers from either side; I doubt they'd indulge in the sort of poor scholarship displayed here. [[Special:Contributions/82.42.214.208|82.42.214.208]] ([[User talk:82.42.214.208|talk]]) 01:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
:My problem with it is that it's full of defensive-sounding language that contributes nothing to the comparison of language features. Things like "Java does not permit pointers or pointer-arithmetic within the Java runtime environment. The Java language designers reasoned that pointers were one of the primary features that enable programmers to inject bugs into their code and chose not to support them." Everything after the first sentence is just someone's attempt to editorialize using the designers' "intent." There is nothing about stating the features of the language that implies a shortcoming, and they have no business in this article.[[Special:Contributions/94.135.236.132|94.135.236.132]] ([[User talk:94.135.236.132|talk]]) 13:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I found it very informative though, and filled with useful information <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.183.102.105|132.183.102.105]] ([[User talk:132.183.102.105|talk]]) 23:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Sure, it may have information in it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not suitable for Wikipedia in its current form. [[User:EboMike|EboMike]] ([[User talk:EboMike|talk]]) 02:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
'''Page is very useful''' - An encylopedia at best is a source of useful knowledge, this page contains a great deal of useful information.
In response to arguments that this is irrelevant:
*These are two proprietary products produced by competing corporations.
Ignoring how C# and Java are open standards, why would this matter? If there was an article on advertising strategies of Coca-Cola and Pepsi it would still be interesting and useful.
*Many of the details are volitile (sic) and the article will quickly go stale.
That what we know changes is not a reason to never teach. What is the current status of hormone replacement therapy? How about dietary recommendations of sodium levels?
*Other issues related to colors and verbosity
Someone cleaned these up "try {" in Java versus "try\n\t{" in C#. Variable usage of white space is irrelevant, the reader will know that, ditto with colors.
*Bias
If information is incorrect or presented in a poor fashion, it should be removed. This is an entirely separate issue.
Why in the "Pass by reference" only immutable and basic types are used? String in Java is well known to be immutable while StringBuffer is the corresponding mutable class, in this case it seems that in java all the values are passed by reference. [[Special:Contributions/194.127.8.25|194.127.8.25]] ([[User talk:194.127.8.25|talk]]) 13:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[[User:Marco|Marco]] ([[User talk:Marco|talk]]) 15:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
*Not Encyclopedic
Admittedly, Britannica probably would not have this article. Britannica is also not as good as wikipedia. This article is a compendium recommending a lot of good information. People need to get things done with computers, C/Java/Python/C++/C#/Haskell are all ways to get stuff done, how do they compare? Many people have found this article useful. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Evolvedmicrobe|Evolvedmicrobe]] ([[User talk:Evolvedmicrobe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Evolvedmicrobe|contribs]]) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Agree, the article is '''definitely useful and valuable''', for programmers and practitioners from both camps who are interested at the differences and connections between the two popular languages. Keep and improve it. -- [[User:Softzen|Softzen]] ([[User talk:Softzen|talk]]) 02:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:Err... Java is an open standard. [[Special:Contributions/68.173.113.106|68.173.113.106]] ([[User talk:68.173.113.106|talk]]) 21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC) (woops, sorry! I thought it was but the oracle google lawsuit made me wonder.
::I agree there really is no point to having articles like this at all. This is something that makes sense for a Gartner or Forrester report but not an encyclopedia. [[User:MadScientistX11|MadScientistX11]] ([[User talk:MadScientistX11|talk]]) 21:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Comparison of C Sharp and Java]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=698698394 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304204652/http://blogs.sun.com:80/javafx/entry/how_to_use_javafx_in to http://blogs.sun.com/javafx/entry/how_to_use_javafx_in
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 18:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
| 