[Bush2000]

Um -- yes, you have.

Read my lips: Java and C#/.NET are analogous. Neither is better. When I suggest parity, you insist that "no, no ... .NET won't be ready for prime time for 3 to 4 years..." which is nothing short of a joke.

And of *course* I point out times that Java might have worked better. In that case, I was just pointing out that it was better than regular ASP at that specific task -- which he described fully.

I won't disagree that Java is better than standard ASP for many things. But it depends on the application. For very simple tasks and limited scope, ASP might make more sense.

In your world, no mention of Java allowed in an MS discussion. I do feel .NET is good, and Java is better at most things. That is clearly not allowed in your world.

You have a right to your opinion. If you think Java is better, fine. Great. Have a cookie. But you have basically given "fill in the blank" as your justification for Java being "better". Which won't fly.

Must be an awfully small world.

Open your eyes.

[Dominic Harr]

Neither is better.

Well, in my world, each technology is better at some things than others. So each has good and bad.

Java has bad -- slower execution times, it's a nightmare to use some local file systems, etc.

I can admit that. That is not an 'insult' to me. You can tell me I made a mistake in using a Java applet for a simple clock, it should have just been ASP. I'd agree, wouldn't consider that an insult.

.NET, also, has good and bad. The good -- OO design, potentially cross-platform, faster development than traditional MS development.

But now's where you start to attack.

.NET also has bad. It's untested. MS has a bad track record. There is no 'applet' style web application (and no, a Windows-only WinForm won't do for any internet applet I do, it can *not* be Windows-only).

One of us is a salesman. The other is a working developer (well, on vacation this week!).