Comparison Of C Sharp And Java
This article compares Microsoft's C# programming language with Oracle's (formerly Sun's) Java programming language. While the focus of this article is mainly the programming languages and their features, such a comparison will necessarily also consider some platform features and some library features. For a more detailed comparison of the platforms, please see Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms.
The comparison focuses on areas where the languages differ. In fact the two languages and their platforms are more alike than they are different: Both are (primarily) statically, strongly, and mostly manifestly typed, both are class-based object-oriented, both are designed with semi-interpretation or runtime compilation in mind, both use garbage-collection, and both are "curly brace languages" like C and C++. Common ancestry is also evident in their common terminology and often very similar syntax features.
Read more about Comparison Of C Sharp And Java: Language and Features, Runtime Environments
Other articles related to "comparison of c sharp and java, java":
... in a manner that contravened Sun's standards and conventions for Java platform neutrality, and which features therefore violated the license agreement between Microsoft and ... studied a number of existing languages including C++, Java, Modula-2, C and Smalltalk ... of C# implemented roughly the same features as Java although it was deliberately closer to C++ in syntax ...
Famous quotes containing the words comparison of, comparison and/or sharp:
“But the best read naturalist who lends an entire and devout attention to truth, will see that there remains much to learn of his relation to the world, and that it is not to be learned by any addition or subtraction or other comparison of known quantities, but is arrived at by untaught sallies of the spirit, by a continual self-recovery, and by entire humility.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)
“The exercise of power is determined by thousands of interactions between the world of the powerful and that of the powerless, all the more so because these worlds are never divided by a sharp line: everyone has a small part of himself in both.”
—Václav Havel (b. 1936)