In the Battle of Java versus .NET, Companies Choose ... Both

Loraine Lawson

You're more likely to hear complaints about connecting to back-end transaction systems if you're using .NET, according to a recent survey by Evans Data. .NET developers are also more likely to blame changes at the application level and back-end for slowdown than Java programmers.


Admittedly, that's not the main point of this Enterprise Systems article covering the survey, but I thought it was interesting and it relates specifically to integration, so I'm starting there.


Don't pat yourself on the back too soon if you're Mr. Java, though -- the survey found Java users are more likely to find fault with JVM or architecture issues than the .NET CLR users. Java coders also seem to generate or encounter more bugs and "disproportionately cite memory leaks and out-of-memory conditions as triggers for application failure," according to the article.


To my mind, those data points actually illuminate this Evans Data finding: While the survey found .NET is besting Java in enterprise adoption this year, a majority of respondents say they're supporting both. The Enterprise Systems article quoted industry veteran Jasmine Noel, a principal with consultancy Ptak, Noel & Associates:

"An increasing number of enterprises are realizing the benefits of deploying applications built on both .NET and Java. However, with those benefits come the challenges of managing a heterogeneous environment coupled with the unique issues of both development architectures."

The trick with that approach, it seems to me, would be ensuring you're offsetting the problems of one with the strengths of the other rather than just doubling your problems.


Overall, though, most companies plan to invest more in .NET than Java. Three-fourths say they'll spend more on .NET and half of those surveys say they plan to add additional .NET staff, according to the article.

Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Oct 1, 2008 2:35 AM Francis Carden Francis Carden  says:
David, I think Loraine's point was correct from the article. That is more that companies are intending to keep spending more on .NE. Maybe because it must do something more for them than just 'free' Java!Do you think enterprises would pay for something that was free if it didn't need to. There's obvious significant differentiators and more to the point, paying more can be a plus lest your not giving credit to IT for realizing they are getting an ROI.You could equally argue, paying for something when you don't need to, proves that the free stuff sucks! (just a little)!. Reply
Oct 1, 2008 12:16 PM David Armstrong David Armstrong  says:
Re: "Overall, though, most companies plan to invest more in .NET than Java. Three-fourths say theyll spend more on .NET and half of those surveys say they plan to add additional .NET staff, according to the article."I'm not surprised. It seems every Microsoft shop I've run into spends inordinate amounts of money in hardware, training and license support. Java shops many times simply cost less because the license costs are cheaper or free and the setup is straight-forward. And they seem to be doing more.Paying more is not usually a plus. Reply
Oct 2, 2008 3:31 AM David Armstrong David Armstrong  says:
Francis, regarding your question: "Do you think enterprises would pay for something that was free if it didnt need to."In a word, yes. I've seen many organizations make a "safe" decision for a because they know that Microsoft is big and a safe bet. I write proprietary software so I'm not against propriettary software. But, alot of the open source offerings are very good.We have MySQL and MS SQLServer in house. MySQL is faster and does everything we need (PostgreSQL is even better IMO). Out app connects to both databases, but we find MS SQLServer to be slower even though it is on expensive hardware. Our MySQL Database is on a box which cost 1/10th what the MS box cost.If you have to run an application which only runs under Windows then you've got no choice - and that is certainly a very valid argument for a proprietary solution. But if your application runs under an open source framework, it will generally cost you less.Case in point: A friend works for a large organization using MS exclusively. Their department wanted to network with another department over a fiber connection. Their setup required a special MS box to sit between the two networks. This required an extra box, licenses for connectivity software and they send someone for a weeks worth of training to manage the box.We bridge two networks via a linux box (which is also used as a workstation). I just setup the two network cards for their respective networks and I didn't need a week of training to do it. I fail to see what the benefit of the MS solution is? Where's the ROI? Reply
Oct 21, 2008 5:27 AM Paul Ellis Paul Ellis  says:
While the balance between .NET and J2EE still seems to be shifting from year-to-year one of the real take-aways here is that mixed platform environments are, and will likely continue to be a way of life for both SOA and non-SOA environments. Regardless of which one, if either, is the dominant platform in any given enterprise organizations need to take that into consideration as they select toolsets to manage these highly heterogeneous environments. While you could use different tools from various vendors, it probably makes more sense to find a solution that covers both J2EE and .NET so you are using the same metrics and terminology to monitor and manage transactions that span these mixed environments. Reply

Post a comment





(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.



Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.