Talk:Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms

message: The GPL discussion on the deal between Microsoft and Novell should be moved to another article.  It concludes without evidence, without completed litegation between FSF and Microsoft or an agreement between them that Microsoft has somehow run into problems with GPL.  This is speculative at best and should be removed.  
Comments about Microsoft's shared source license versus GPL should be moved elsewhere also.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.211.131 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move GPL and alledged GPL problems to another article 

message: In the light of the recent announcement at JavaOne, the license paragraph should be rewritten. Sun has now GPLed a great part of the Class library code, fulfilling their promise. Only encumbered parts that were licensed by Sun from some 3rd parties who did not want their code to be released under an open-source license have remained closed-source, and the goal of Sun is to replace these parts by open-source alternatives (see here as fast as possible, with help from the community. This is just my estimate, but I think that now more than 90% of the Class library code (including the associated C / C++ / OpenGL platform code) is free. The paragraph to change is "As of April 2007, the Java SE, ME, and EE APIs remain open source, but not yet free software. ... or licensing others to do so". As said, in the light of the recent announcement (it is more than an announcement, look at the openjdk website), this paragraph has become POV. Hervegirod 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  License 

message: I'm concerned with the following statement on this paragraph: While Mono may never manage to achieve a 100% perfect reproduction of .NET (due to patent issues which always arise when copying commercially owned software algorithms) it has managed to remain far more complete than equivalent Java free software implementations thus far. I think it's POV, I was not able to find any facts that prove this (as for example API compatibility, results of .NET tests for Mono vs Classpath for comparable versions of .NET / Java, etc...). Hervegirod 11:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was my fault :)  Historically the stuff about Open Source variants has been fraught with controversy, so I felt it was important to balance any criticism.  IIRC I did an edit which noted that Mono may never be a 100% perfect reproduction of .NET, so for diplomacy I felt it would be good to note that Mono is still a lot more complete than any open Java implementation.  The end result is probably more pedantic than necessary, and potentially POV.  On second thoughts, I'm not convinced either point is *really* important, so perhaps it might be better to strike the whole paragraph?  :) JavaKid 10:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in [[Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms#Market presence|Market presence]] ? 

message: Part whose deletion was reverted said: ""Also, this virtually threatens people that use the non-core part (the part that is not covered by the ECMA standard, and is patented by Microsoft) of Mono on other Linux platforms than Novell's Suse."" Deletion comment from Special:Contributions/65.96.174.25 was ""The removed section is not accurate. The non-standard parts, such as winforms, were implemented without MS source and so are as patent-free as anything can be"". Patents have nothing to do with source. Patents protect concepts, not code. The fact that the non standard part was implemented without any of MS code has nothing to do with that. Comment would have apply to licensed code, which is not the case here. Hervegirod 22:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About undoing the deletion of the part about winforms

message: I'm extremely interested in this aspest. Unfortunately, the article doesn't talk about it at all.snowman 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is why the internet gods invented Google?  :)  Seriously though, I'm not sure this is suitable material for an article like this.  The two platforms are close enough in performance as to make little practical difference.  Benchmarks are often controversial, even for simple tests like basic number crunching.  Not only does each side nit pick over how the test code is written, but there's also the added complication of VM options, heap sizes, etc. which can make a big difference to the results of some tests.  Sterile tests are often not the best way to assess how JIT/hotspot'd code will work in the real world.  (In)famous performance problems (like the fact that Sun's Java 1.4 had serious performance issues with trig functions) may be worth noting, but IMHO quoting benchmarks directly is asking for trouble... JavaKid 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody discuss about the comparison of performance? 

message: Traditional computer applications ==> Desktop applications SERIOUSLY needs balance from a .NET expert!  Don't want to risk doing it myself, my desktop .NET experience amounts to only a few months of professional coding!  Anyone...?  JavaKid 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of balance needs (urgently!) addressing 

message: I think this article should address the current popularity in the market of the two technologies.  Which is more commonly used in which industries, and what are the current trends?
Calvinit21 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of Popularity 

message: I would prefer just .NET and Java. Mono and Classpath are just alternative implementations. Hervegirod (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why .NET/Mono or Java/Classpath 

message: Event if it is quite limited for the moment the article should mention
.NET Compact Framework
.NET Micro Framework
and alternatives implementations for mobile plateform.
and from my point of view the article need to be more balanced  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.39.78.114 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  .NET on mobile/alternative plateform 

message: Article has no mention of Google's Android mobile device platform.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.200.171 (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Android 

message: I don't have the time to do this myself right now but there are clearly a couple of anti-Microsoft statements that really has nothing to do with the .NET framework in itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesda (talk • contribs) 07:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political statements should be cleaned up 

message: The article only mentions to SUN and Microsoft. I think the author is a SUN employee, and in spite of compare java platform and .Net, he talks about only open source, GNU etc. And 3/4 of a paragraph author talks about Java. 
This is not a comparsion, please change its title to SUN vs Microsoft in terms of open-source.
Thanks.
: It turned out that (some time ago), people were saying exactly the opposite (people complained that Java was always unfavourably compared to .NET). As for the Open Source / Patents concern, it is a real concern in the literature, both for Java and .NET, so not talking about that would really be POV. As for the fact that the article is dealing a lot with Java, some would say that when the length of a paragraph is longer for Java than for .NET, it is sometimes / often to criticize Java (Java is not standardized under ISO, there is a trade-secret license agreement on JavaEE). And as for Blu-ray / HDi, Blu-ray has clearly won the game. I don't think that this is a good article though (too much personal opinions in it), but saying that it is biased toward Java is not true IMHO. Hervegirod (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article only mentions to open-source, does not compare java and .net 

message: I believe this section is totally redundant. It has nothing to do with the comparison of .NET and Java and what is more it is clearly anti-MS statement. This particular sentence is absurd in the light of the talk about Mono in the rest of the article:
 The .NET platform can only be run easily under the Microsoft operating systems, so .NET development forces developers and end- users into using the Microsoft Windows operating system.
I will just remove this section. I guess if anyone does not agree they can just put it back...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NaibStilgar (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more to life than enterprise deployments. I know of numerous serious, open and commercial projects that maintain Mono compatibility as a major project goal. It is worth noting that Mono is not .NET, so its existence is not relevant to whether .NET is cross-platform. However, "cross-platform" is not a binary value. There are easily a dozen Microsoft platforms currently in widespread use that support some or all of .NET. Not that it matters, because the contentious statement is nowhere to be found in the article these days. Maghnus (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing Platforms / Proprietary Technologies Section should be removed 

message: I proposed this article for deletion based on the fact that it is a comparison not an encyclopedia article.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep: There's a lot of other comparison articles, see for example Category:Programming language comparisons. Plus this article  is not just a list of topics with checks for one platform or the other; it is written as an encyclopedia article IMHO, even if it could be improved. Hervegirod (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article could be improved, but qualifies as encyclopedic, and deals with an important subject, comparing and describing properties of two major, highly related programming platforms. – Chip Zero 12:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: There is nothing in wikipedia manual of style that prevents from writing a comparison article (comparisons are not in WP:NOT). It must not be merely a list of topics, which is not the case of this article, even if it can / must be improved. Hervegirod (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion 

message: Sun is no longer the company at the helm, so the article is out of date with respect to Oracle's acquisition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.84.130 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update article to reflect Oracle's acquisition of Sun 

message: I believe that:
While many feature phones include a JVM, they are not always heavily used by users (particularly in North America). Initially Java applications on most phones typically consisted of menuing systems, small games, or systems to download ringtones etc. However, more powerful phones are increasingly being sold with simple applications pre-loaded, such as translation dictionaries, world clock displays (darkness/light, timezones, etc.) and calculators. Some of these are written in Java, although how often phone owners actually use them is probably unknown.
should be removed.
* To my knowledge, Java ME games and application are still downloaded in the millions (per day)
* Features phones have always shipped with simple Java ME apps pre-installed (for example, Nokia 6800)
* Today, applications for Java ME include the likes of SAP BuisinessObjects Mobile
* "probably unknown" is not a factual statement
Spockwithabeard (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile Platforms 

message: Adding a POV mark to the Community section. Sentence “Oracle retains exclusive and unlimited legal rights to its Java intellectual properties, and the Java community is subject to those rights.” is factually inaccurate and given it gives this one sentence against three paragraph tract about community involvement into the .Net process the resulting feeling of whole section is that .Net is somehow more community friendly than Java, which is blatantly untrue given completely free (in FSF meaning of the word) branch of Java development (OpenJDK and its friends, current Oracle development of Java is on GPL-free OpenJDK 8, etc.). Ceplm (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV: Community 

message: The second paragraph started with the assertion of "both platforms are well used and supported in this market" but then mutated into an attempt in proving a preference for java in "high-end, large-scale, or heavy duty" applications, with an additional assertion that java was more stable, none of which were supported by the evidence of the existence of a java based API from google, or native java code support from within oracle.  I backed the whole paragraph off to the original assertion that both platforms are well used and included statistics from builtwith.com which could possibly be broken down further (industry maybe?).  This begins to address the Comparison of Popularity issue that was brought up.  I appologize if I jumped the gun on the edits, i didn't discover the talk pages until after I did them.  Brrrdog (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muliple Assertions in Server Application comparison 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090527021318/http://en.opensuse.org:80/OpenJDK to http://en.opensuse.org/OpenJDK
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620065024/http://blog.softwhere.org/archives/196 to http://blog.softwhere.org/archives/196
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418133611/http://langel.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/openjdk-in-fedora-9/ to http://langel.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/openjdk-in-fedora-9/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429191849/http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/in_hardy_heron to http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/in_hardy_heron
*Added  tag to https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this still valid?
> This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (October 2013)
This is the very first that we see, and if it is really still the case, consider to change the date. 
Currently, it reads like this article is abandoned since years.
Cheers ShalokShalom (talk)
: The remarks of flagging it in october 2013 has outdated, is still valid today for the exact same reason. Putting a date in those models helps to know from when the flag is there. (I missed it while I was expecting it) 92.154.41.65 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 

message: I don't think the article is up to date considering that many Java announcements mentioned in the article are from 2007-2009. Android also no longer maintains its own Java VM implementation. Macbrayne (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up to date?