|
|
|
|
|
by palindrone
4236 days ago
|
|
JVM runs on wider range of hardware. JVM compiler is faster than .NET equivalent. JVM has more programming languages tagetting it. these languages have much more mature libraries. Some of them run on .NET, but almost none of the languages from .NET runs on JVM. JVM has many many more man years spent on libraries, so Java libraries are much more trustworthy. And so on... JVM and Java are much more reliable. Java backwards compatibility beats .NET every time. How many .NET frameworks do you need to install if you need software written in different versions of .NET? Answer: all of them. And Java?: only one.
I've got 3 or 4 versions of .NET on my system because of this. |
|
On the server side, you can install whichever .NET versions you need and they will live together quite nicely. But you can only install one Java version, and updates randomly break things (that's probably not true in general, but that's how it seemed to me). And I can only remember a handful of issues that were caused by the .NET framework, we had constant reliability issues with Java.
Having lots of languages available is nice, but it's not a core requirement for a platform in my opinion. .NET has C# and F#, and they complement each other very well.
I haven't had any library issues with Java or .NET, so I can't comment on that.
My guess is that my problems with Java stem from lack of experience with it, and my success with .NET is because of my deep experience with it. So it seems likely that your perspective is for similar reasons.