Discussions

News: Speculation: Microsoft to buy Rational or Borland

  1. Shares in Rational rose on Wednesday on speculation that Microsoft would bid for the software company after IBM agreed to buy it for $2.1 billion in cash. Borland stock also rose following a report on CNBC television that it could emerge as a potential acquisition target for Microsoft if IBM bought Rational.

    Read Rational shares gain on Microsoft bid speculation.

    Threaded Messages (95)

  2. I really don't understand what these agreements mean but if Rational's Site has IBM and Rational have signed an agreement that IBM has agreed to purchase Rational, then how can Microsoft still bid.

    Can someone explain this a bit to me here?
  3. Rational's managment doesn't own the company, the shareholders do. If Microsoft made a large offer, management would have to consider it.
  4. That's the thing with publicly traded companies. Nothing is final until ratified by shareholders.

    Sandeep.
  5. I think that you all are in a big troubles. I am Microsoft .NET developer. .NET rules. Microsoft wins! :-) Tomas
  6. MSFT might be afraid that IBM will eventually drop cross-technology (i.e. Java & .NET/COM) support in the Rational Product Suite in favour of Java-only technology.

    If they buy Rational, they can do what they like, which is typically a MSFT-only approach (look at Java and how they tried to fundamentally change support for it inside their IDE).

    One thing is certain, they have the money, and that's a scary thought by itself! When I first saw this news item, I thought it was a hoax, but if you think about what they could do with that bank account...it's real scary!
  7. Ok, they are both publically traded companies run by smart people, they are not idiots. Neither company is going to pay more Rational than they think its worth.

    Both companies have huge sums of money much greater than the value of Rational, so the chances that Microsoft is going "bury IBM with money" is not entirely founded in truth
  8. IBM has $5.1 billion in cash, Microsoft has $40.5. I think MSFT would win in a cash war.
  9. This shows that no one has faith on .Not the market is adopting and using Java Platform.

    MS is doing the same as usual by buying Borland they think they can dent Java well they are so wrong.

    MS motto if u cant beat em buy em

    MS == evil empire
  10. Rational,
    I don't care,
    but Borland...
    I event can imagined it,
    what would become of JBuilder?
    it's sounds like a joke
  11. You realize that nobody has bought anybody yet....

    Sandeep.
  12. Together CC and Rose[ Go to top ]

    Borland just purchased Together. If Microsoft purchased both Rational and Borland, they would own the two best UML tools. That make me nervous.

    Perry
  13. Together CC and Rose[ Go to top ]

    That would be silly in the eyes of Microsoft shareholders. There is no reason for Microsoft to buy two modelling tools, it would be seen as excessive by their shareholders, and despite anything else you believe about MS, they are a publically traded company, and like all publically traded companies they have to listen to their shareholders.

    It is far more likely that if Microsoft's bid on Rational fails, then they will buy Borland, but I don't believe its likely they will buy both.
  14. Together CC and Rose[ Go to top ]

    I don't believe it's likely that Microsoft will buy Borland. The consolidation of power for Windows (a monopoly) development tools would be hard to justify under antitrust scrutiny.

    This administration has shown that it will enforce antitrust, even if it chose not to enforce it in the Microsoft case.
  15. Together CC and Rose[ Go to top ]

    Arvind
    <quote>
     That would be silly in the eyes of Microsoft shareholders. There is no reason for Microsoft to buy two modelling tools, it would be seen as excessive by their shareholders, and despite anything else you believe about MS, they are a publically traded company, and like all publically traded companies they have to listen to their shareholders.
    </quote>
    Yeah right! The Microsoft shareholders are going to prevent Microsoft from these actions. LOL. Like they even know what modelling tools are. Probably something to do with models and Victoria's Secret eright?
    If you really belive that shareholders have any rights and they can prevent a company from doing something I have a bridge to sell to you :).
    Cheers
    R
  16. Together CC and Rose[ Go to top ]

    <Q>
    . If Microsoft purchased both Rational and Borland, they would own the two best UML tools. That make me nervous
    </Q>
    Can't code without a UML tool? I know major companies that don't and have never used db modeling tools.

    Some big names in Java don't use UML tools. Maybe a piece of paper.
  17. It is interesting though. I mean nobody has ever thought that MS might just buy out Java. I mean they couldn't buy Sun, but they could buy out Borland, Macromedia, maybe even BEA(Who cares about IBM and Sun-Nobody likes WS or SunONE anyway). That sure would be one way to get everyone to switch to .NET, buy all the good J2EE servers until .NET was the best enterprise server out there. I don't really think they would do it, but it sure would make for some fun anti-trust suits.
    Michael
  18. If MS buys out Java, another platform would quickly come together. Since .Net is such a POS, it would not take long for this new platform to catch up.
  19. "I mean nobody has ever thought that MS might just buy out Java. I mean they couldn't buy Sun, but they could buy out Borland, Macromedia, maybe even BEA"

    Not that MS will but they can buy SUN for cash. Sun's market cap is less than 10 billion. MS has over 40 billion in cash reserves. MS market cap is over 280 billion. IBM's market cap is less than 140 billion. Wonder if MS can even buy IBM by using its stock. Makes me wonder if there was true capitalism/free market system in US what might have happen (i.e. no anti-monopoly laws...)
  20. True capitalism/free market by definition includes anit-monopoly laws. Without them capitalism breaks down and ceases to exist.
  21. <q>MS might just buy out Java. I mean they couldn't buy Sun, but they could buy out Borland, Macromedia, maybe even BEA<\q>

    Say, if M$ buys Borland, what would be the reaction of other IDE/modeling tool vendors? If M$ buys BEA, reactions of other app server vendors? Maybe chuck a party because they have opportunity to increase their market share? Surely M$ would not continue the Java product lines of the acquired companies.

    Just a thought.
  22. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    The Borland buyout is highly doubtful because of anti-trust concerns. Its like buying out the ownly remaining competitor of development tools for the windows platform.

    Furthermore, what will they do with the assets. Borland doesn't have a .NET product. TogetherJ and JBuilder are both Java products. Can you expect microsoft to maintain Java products?

    The Rational rumor may be more plausible. However, just like Borland, you might have anti-trust concerns that may be a deal breaker. So would you rather get 2.1 billion in the bank, or some higher offer with a chance that the Feds might break it up.
  23. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    "...Borland doesn't have a .NET product..."

    Delphi .NET is on the way.
  24. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    To all of the people out there fearing the approach of the "evil empire", you're getting ridiculous. There is no good financial reason for MS to buy Borland. Hell, there isn't even a good reason for them to buy Rational. If you think they're going to pay all of that money just to put a single Java tools developer out of business, then I'm glad you're not the CEO of any company that I invest in. It makes absolutely NO sense to spend the money it would cost to buy Borland (and Togethersoft with them) if they didn't intend to use the products. There is too much else out there that would keep the Java market going. MS would gain little advantage from the money required. Plus, I think the whole idea of buying a company to "put it to bed" is a little nonsensical, especially for a company in the midst of anti-trust proceedings. MS has gotten to where it is today for many reasons but I don't believe stupidity was one of them.

    Buying Rational doesn't make much sense, either, since Rational's tools compete with some MS tools like Visio. Plus, the market that Rational targets is the much higher-end enterprise market, for companies that can pay the $7000 license seats for their developers; Rational is a more compelling sell in the high-end (Java) world.
  25. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    <Drew>
    Buying Rational doesn't make much sense, either, since Rational's tools compete with some MS tools like Visio. Plus, the market that Rational targets is the much higher-end enterprise market, for companies that can pay the $7000 license seats for their developers; Rational is a more compelling sell in the high-end (Java) world.
    </Drew>

    I wonder why I got a couple "Weeeeee"-mails from somebody and his cousins at microsoft.com right after the IBM deal was announced.

    I think Microsoft is very aware, that when IBM is acquiring Rational, the .Net support in Rational will eventually suffer, maybe even die. Also they are aware, that if they can acquire Rational, they have the power to drop the Java support in Rational. Since Rational has a huge user base, this is what the counter bid is about.

    Like Kevin said, Microsoft is afraid that "IBM will eventually drop cross-technology (i.e. Java & .NET/COM) support in the Rational Product Suite in favour of Java-only technology".
  26. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    The majority of Microsoft developer base comprises of VB hacks, the sort who faint at the prospect of even working outside of Visual Studio environment. Imagine trying to get these folks to buy in to using UML and Rational. Visio pretty much covers all their needs.

    Besides , Microsoft has consistently done such a horrible job with Java that most existing customers of these companies that use Java would flee in droves.

    Nevertheless, this spectacle would be fun to watch!

    Cheers!
  27. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    <Manish> The majority of Microsoft developer base comprises of VB hacks </Manish>

    Manish, you are a moron. A programmer can still hack regardless of the language. Ever seen JDBC calls directly from a JSP - now thats a hack and a half and things like that get done all the time. I've seen just as much crap Java code as I've seen crap VB code. And, from a business point of view, you pay a heap more for hacky Java coders than you do for hacky VB coders - and you can knock up a small Windows app in VB quicker than you could in Swing.

    <Manish> Microsoft has consistently done such a horrible job with Java </Manish>

    No doubt I'll get flamed like hell for this, but Visual J++ was a damn good IDE - its just a pity Microsoft had other ideas and eventually stopped support for it. In its day it crapped all over its nearest rival in terms of look & feel, speed etc. Also, where do you think Java would be if Microsoft didn't include a JVM in IE?

    So, Manish, if you want to contribute, why don't you come up with something original rather than the "Microsoft is evil and everything they touch is crap" mantra that has been said a 1000 times and bores me to hell.

    As for the Borland buy out: Its anti-competitive and just won't happen; Microsoft won't even think about it.

    That's all ... off to write some hacky Java now :-).
  28. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Microsoft has better products. That's all. Try .NET and you will see. There is no reason to use Java on Windows OS now. Tom
  29. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <quote>I think that you all are in a big troubles. I am Microsoft .NET developer. .NET rules. Microsoft wins! :-) Microsoft has better products. That's all. Try .NET and you will see. There is no reason to use Java on Windows OS now. </quote>

    Oh please, I've been using .NET for awhile along side J2EE when the project calls for it and I can assure you, the "There is no reason to use Java" is bullshit.

    I think it's pretty obvious you know very little about application design or you wouldn't be so naive. By using .NET, you commit yourself to some very controversial frameworks that many developers have a hard time dealing with when applications become extremely complex. Microsoft doesn't have the support or even the "choice" like Java does in these areas. I'm not even talking about app servers. I'm talking about being able to use model 1 or model 2 or how one might want to implement your persistence. With .NET, there is zero choice in favour of simplying development. This isn't the best strategy most of the time because good design revolves around knowing the tradeoffs and picking the right design for the application. I can't see .NET providing the best solution for every project.

    For example, implementing a Domain Model is very difficult in .NET. In fact, smart .NET developers won't attempt it - they'll make more of a filtering design where the dataset goes through multiple layers of code that transforms it until it models what the UI controls expect in addition to service-like business and application logic at the various layers. This approach is wonderful when taking advantage of .NET functionality throughout the framework, but it leads to many uses of the strategy pattern or common helper classes since it's very difficult to avoid logic duplication.

    Open source is very mature in the java/j2ee community too, unlike .NET. With a little bit of effort, you can learn how to use some very cool tools and frameworks that make your life easier. Everything is open and the communities that build these tools are very helpful.

    Also, ASP.NET isn't nearly as good as say JSP + Webwork + Sitemesh. I take it you have no idea what these are. In this case, it takes less than a hour to setup these tools in your programming environment. In the end, the Java developer will have a very clean mechanism to implement presentation logic and to delegate to application logic without having tons of java code all over the place. Also, the ability to dynamically configure the presentation layer makes things very easy. These frameworks are very simple, easy to learn and powerful. They are also efficient too unlike Microsoft's view state implementation for example, which is garbage.

    If you think .NET is all about how easy it is to do UI development, you are missing the bigger picture. Many apps are webbased today because it's simply easier to deploy them. In these cases, .NET is really no better than a java-based solution.

    Also, not all systems are windows-based. Many large applications that you would never even get the oppurtunity to build are very complex and run on linux or unix. These aren't simple 1 cpu machine systems either. .NET doesn't help in these areas while Java serves both Windows and Unix-style Operating Systems.

    I also wouldn't be worried so much about Java dying. Tell that to the fortune 500 companies that use Java and they will laugh at you. .NET has not nearly penetrated that space as Microsoft had hoped. Being a .NET adovcate, you'd know that.

    Go back to godotnet.com or wherever you hang out. You have no idea what you are talking about.
  30. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Ken,

    You can use model 1 or model 2 in (old) ASP too by utilizing "Scripting Components". The problem is that people doesn't do it, the system "invites" you do fast hacks.

    You also can achieve nice clean and simple MVC solutions in J2EE. But again the problem is that people don't do it, the system "invites" to over engineer your projects.

    So the problem is not so much what your systems is capable of, but what does it "invites" you do to.

    There is the strength of the .NET. What its "invites you do to", the road of the least resistance so to speak, is more or less correct for 90% of the 10 000 business applications existing today.

    But if you have the need, and know what you are doing, you can do everything you can do in J2EE.

    Bill Roth, former Product Line Manager for J2EE at Sun:
    "EJB were written for (and by) the systems software architects at the roughly 80 companies in the world that build enterprise-class transactional software"

    EJB is not all that bad --it is overuse of EJB that are killing the cat--
    (Excuse me for repeating myself)

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  31. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Rolf Tollerud,

    I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm speaking on behalf of the J2EE architects and on behalf of writing quality code and application architectures. I'm saying J2EE is the language to use and that .NET isn't. .NET invites people to put data, business and application logic in forms. Considering all the frameworks out for java, It can be argued that using a framework ensures that you don't. MS has no such frameworks and the open source community isn't very established to providing them.

    Also, telling that you can achieve a nice MVC implementation in J2EE, I already knew that. I'm saying the opposite. Re-read my post please.

    Regards,
    Ken
  32. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Ken,

    I don't mean to sound rude either, but I'm speaking on behalf of the .NET architects on writing quality code and application architectures --that performs--.

    <Q>.NET invites people to put data, business and application logic in forms</Q>

    I will advice you to try to be more honest next time you post to TSS.

    <Q>Considering all the frameworks out for java</Q>

    Yes, there are a lot of frameworks; allow me one citation from Javalobby:

    "Web frameworks have a lot of problems: many of them address problems that aren't really problems. Even when they do, the fact that there are ten thousand templating systems like Struts proves that ~none~ of them are really satisfactory. Then, the things that are real problems never get addresses"

    Right in this moment Sun/JCP is trying to duplicate the ASP.NET framework with JSF ("Java Server Faces") contact me in a year or two to discuss whenever they have succeeded or not.

    Or contact me when you can point me to a J2EE site with approximately the same performance as Merrill Lynch at 75 million transactions per day at 25 million users (that’s 21,000 transactions per second)

    <Q>Also, telling that you can achieve a nice MVC implementation in J2EE, I already knew that. I'm saying the opposite. Re-read my post please</Q>

    If --you reread my post-- you will see that I am not bashing J2EE, I am criticizing --what the J2EE system invites you do to--.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  33. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    I never mentioned a templating system or Struts.. if I recall, I said JSP+WebWork+Sitemesh which does in fact solve the problems with systems like Struts. We don't like struts very much either. Although it is the most popular MVC implementation, it's not the best.
  34. A good architect can succeed with .NET or J2EE. The concept of a layered architecture or the use of design patterns or frameworks is nothing new to either platform. Nothing stops me from writing Data Access code in a JSP or an ASP.NET Form. Nothing stops me from putting it in an EJB or a C# object. Nothing stops me from generating HTML from a back end object either. Bad architects or developers will do wrong things and Good ones will do the write thing.

    Anyone who says they can do this with one application server and not the other or one platform or not the other is not a very good architect or developer.
  35. <Q>
    A good architect can succeed with .NET or J2EE
    </Q>

    True. But a .Net architect is pretty much on his own unless he/she wants to borrow concepts from Java. And there is nothing wrong with that. Anyone know of anyone looking for .Net architects? I know of quite a few that are looking for Java architects. Could be they aren't needed with .Net (I believe otherwise), those using .Net don't yet realize they need them (more than likely) or no one is doing anything in .Net that needs architects (probably more so in .Net than in Java).
  36. Mark:

    "But a .Net architect is pretty much on his own unless he/she wants to borrow concepts from Java."

    Do you mean design concepts like the strategy pattern or MVC are Java intellectual property? Check the design books on the market, many of them use Smalltalk or even C++ for example code aside of Java, with time they will start to use C# or even Visual Basic .NET. Object orientation and architectural design is far bigger than Java.
  37. <Q>
    Do you mean design concepts like the strategy pattern or MVC are Java intellectual property?
    </Q>

    No. But we were pretty much talking Java and MS technologies.

    <Q>Check the design books on the market, many of them use Smalltalk or even C++ for example code aside of Java,
    </Q>

    Probably, but I've not seen any MS specific technology ones.

    <Q>
    with time they will start to use C#
    </Q>

    I hope.

    <Q>
     or even Visual Basic .NET.
    </Q>

    I hope not.

    <Q>
    Object orientation and architectural design is far bigger than Java.
    </Q>

    Exactly. I have only seen one good MS design book (from WROX) and it showed how to hack VB into distributed business objects. He did a good job and I learn alot. I wish MS books and mags would spend less time on the tool and how to do things one shouldn't be even doing - and spend more on how to develop good software.
  38. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <quote>I will advice you to try to be more honest next time you post to TSS.</quote>
    I am. The quality of developers using .NET is no where near the quality of developers using Java. I think once you get to using J2EE, you need to have a certain level of understanding of design and patterns. That's a good thing and it's also a bad thing - but at least it invites a choice. If it's exactly what you want, great; if not, use a framework or tool to simplify it. Well written frameworks guide the development to building clean systems. This isn't true for ASP or .NET in general. The dataset is poor at best and ASP.NET is not nearly as good as JSP+Webwork+Sitemesh. Whatever you can do, I will be able to do it faster, cleaner and with better luck when collaborating with other developers.
  39. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Rolf: "Or contact me when you can point me to a J2EE site with approximately the same performance as Merrill Lynch at 75 million transactions per day at 25 million users (thatÂ’s 21,000 transactions per second)"

    I'm sorry, Rolf, but I didn't realize that you wrote that application. Could you tell us a bit more about it? Is that 21000 web pages per second?

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  40. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    I'm sorry, Rolf, but I didn't realize that you wrote that

    >> application. Could you tell us a bit more about it? Is that
    >> 21000 web pages per second?

    Perhaps 1 page and 20999 gif's

    ;-)

    -Nick
  41. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Nick,

    <Q>I feel sorry for those moving to C# (.NET) - All those good tools and help from the Java community that they have to give up. Maybe one day .Net will catch up</Q>

    You mean; when will they catch up with Java Server Faces?

    Is it wrong of me to link to another TSS discussion?
    http://www2.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=16983&article_count=24#68763

    Anyhow, now when we have we passed to the history bin the EJBs, the Cashing and the XML descriptors - maybe time for a TSS discussion of this useless O/R mapping tools? Why thrown away years of valuable in depth knowledge of SQL (Joe Celko do you hear me?) And replace it with a toy query language?

    I must admire you Java guys ability, power, capacity (take your pick) to withstand a virtually unlimited mass of critique. In spite of endless bashing here in your own forum of all the components that constitutes J2EE, benchmark no1, benchmark no2, a complete lack of large scale J2EE sites, report from Gartner that 70% of J2EE projects fail, etc, etc..

    It is admirable really!

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  42. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Manish,

    You insinuate that I am a VB programmer, actually I am a fulltime Java programmer - I haven't touched VB since '97 - you know, before Java came out big or were you still in High School then?? However, I used to code in VB, C, C++ etc and was familiar with the pros and cons of them all. Sure, VB had its problems but you could still whip up an app pretty quick with it that worked and deployed.

    Also, J++ did produce cross-platform code. I used to write heaps of stuff (including RMI servers) on Win2K and deploy them to Linux - never had a hiccup. Did you ever try and use J++ and deploy with it or are you just quoting from the anti-Microsoft bible again - you know, the one that gives you all your lines? I like to get my ideas from experience, sorry.

    Darren.
  43. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Darren,

    Since you are into innuendos , here is my response

    <counter-insult>
    You are such a troll and you give yourself away so easily !!
    </counter-insult>

    So you wrote RMI servers (was it the hello world type sample applications that you found in a book? )using Visual J++ . How did you get to generate stubs ? And how about getting your RMI enabled applications to run on Microsoft JVM ? Did you have fun with WFC polluted GUI ? Imagine the complexity of getting this to run on a large scale deployment with hundreds of heterogenous clients. I rest my case.

    If Rational were to be owned by MS, before I purchased any Rational product,I would demand an inviolate money back guarantee !

    b'bye troll!
  44. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Excuse me children , i think its bed time.

       If we must keep having these discussions ,

       lets see some real techo features from both sides
       not just the usual drival
  45. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Rolf: "I must admire you Java guys ability, power, capacity (take your pick) to withstand a virtually unlimited mass of critique. In spite of endless bashing here in your own forum of all the components that constitutes J2EE, benchmark no1, benchmark no2, a complete lack of large scale J2EE sites, report from Gartner that 70% of J2EE projects fail, etc, etc.."

    Since 90% of the negative posts and "critique" originates from you, that's pretty easy to see through.

    Since benchmark no1 and no2 were both performed by Microsoft, that's pretty easy to see through.

    As far as "a complete lack of large scale J2EE sites", there's only one Fortune 1000 company that I know of that isn't basing big chunks of their infrastructure on J2EE. Gee, wonder which one that is?

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  46. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Just one final comment to Cameron Purdy.

    Is these benchmarks sponsored by Microsoft too?

    http://www.urbancode.com/projects/ejbbenchmark/default.jsp
    http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/Systems/DynaServer/perf_scalability_ejb.pdf

    Toby Hede:"EJB is a bloated technology, pushed by vendors, consultants, dilletantes and heartless manipulators, a technology based on fashion, style, contempt, and everything that is rotten in the IT world"

    Vic Cekvenich: "There are no commercial sites that use EJB"

    See you in one year.

    Bye,

    Rolf Tollerud
  47. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Rolf,

    No need to ban yourself for a year. Benchmarks are a topic we've been over many times - the only benchmarks that mean much to me are the ones on my own projects with the app servers I use on my own hardware.

    I'm sure Toby and Vic are fine folks, but both of those statements you quoted are opinion only. Which is fine, but you shouldn't put them forth as facts backing up your own opinions. If I were to read Toby's and Vic's statements and go, "Gee, I guess I better not ever use EJBs", then I would be a fool, which (while it is a daily struggle ;-) I try not to be.

    No one is trying to say that EJBs are perfect. They absolutely have their problems - but if I find they help in certain aspects of projects I work on, quotes from Vic, Toby Rolf and benchmarks, while interesting and sometimes informative, do not and cannot sway me from my own experiences.


    Cheers
    Ray
  48. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Rolf: "Is these benchmarks sponsored by Microsoft too?"

    First, I'd like to be clear that I think that there exists a great deal of value in a lot of different benchmarks, even including Microsoft's. I do not propose the ostrich maneuver (sticking ones head in the sand), but rather to learn from the benchmarks what is there to be learned. For example, in the case of the Microsoft benchmarks, I learned two important things:

    1. IBM's server failed a test. That's not Microsoft's fault, (as far as I can tell, anyway). We need to hold our vendors to a high level of quality, regardless if our vendor is Microsoft (e.g. .NET GC doesn't work on objects >80KB previous to version 1.1) or IBM (XA transactions kill WebSphere under load running in the configuration used by TMC/Microsoft.)

    2. If high-volume web services are important to you, and if you are using J2EE, you better start lobbying your vendor (e.g. in this case, BEA and IBM) to improve their performance. This is an area where .NET is relatively easy to use and performs pretty well, and Java vendors should learn both lessons. (.NET is neither as fast as TME's implementations (which are Java) nor as easy as BEA's Workshop tool (which is Java); however, it would be nice not to have to piece together a solution on the Java side in order to get both performance and ease of use.)

    Regarding the other links you posted, I haven't studied either. I have no idea who wrote them or sponsored them or what. I will mention that one "EJB benchmark" that was posted showed that EJBs were always slower than straight JDBC, which simply does not have to be the case, due to things like caching. (The same is true with JDO.)

    EJBs are not right for every project. As long as you use them when they make sense, and avoid them when they don't, you'll be fine. As you've noted, it is particularly dangerous to utilize entity EJBs when they are not right for the job. (I don't think you have to be negative about it ... they are what they are, which is useful for some problems and silly overkill for others.)

    Rolf: "Vic Cekvenich: "There are no commercial sites that use EJB""

    I don't know Vic, and I'd hate to argue about something he said without context. I know that there are commercial sites that use EJB, including entity EJBs, because we've worked with several dozen of them. (I can also say that some of them should not have used EJBs, but see above for that conversation ;-)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  49. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Manish,

    Once again, you have proved that you are a moron. I never said that I ran production code on the MS JVM - I always found it too slow. My point was that I used J++ as a development environment as it was a good IDE.

    As for the generation of RMI stubs, well call me silly, but I used rmic.

    Good luck to you and your family,
    Darren.
  50. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Darren,

    What kool-aid have you been drinking ? You are defending an IDE that is now defunct !! You used javasoft rmic instead of j/direct and COM ! You concede MS JVM sucked and yet go to lengths to defend it. What was your point ?

    Enough said!! Move on and get a life!!

    Peace!!

    dd
  51. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    I must admire you Java guys ability, power, capacity (take

    >> your pick) to withstand a virtually unlimited mass of
    >> critique. In spite of endless bashing here in your own
    >> forum of all the components that constitutes J2EE,
    >> benchmark no1, benchmark no2, a complete lack of large
    >> scale J2EE sites, report from Gartner that 70% of J2EE
    >> projects fail, etc, etc..

    Rolf,
    I must admire your capacity to consistantly ignore all the counter-arguments to your weak propositions that J2EE is crap.

    I cant believe the pap you post sometimes.

    Despite the fact that you have little or no experience with J2EE, somehow you feel qualified to be a vocal critic. Not only do you have little to no experience, you display little understanding. Not only do you display little understanding, you show zero desire to learn anything about J2EE.

    Your vacuous arguments in detail:

    "In spite of endless bashing here in your own forum of all the components that constitutes J2EE"
    Endless bashing from people like yourself (ie highly qualified - not).

    "benchmark no1, benchmark no2"
    Waste of time even entering this argument - its been laid to rest.

    "a complete lack of large scale J2EE sites,"
    Two points:
    1) Not all Applications are web applications. My company has done several large scale J2EE applications, (some of them are mainframe replacements) - and these use your favourite bashing-topic - EJB.
    2) Try and use some credible statistics to support your claim that .net already has "large scale" sites under its belt.
    (BTW: If J2EE is such an unsuitable platform for large scale sites, why have all the portal vendors been selling their product stack running ON TOP of J2EE?

    "report from Gartner that 70% of J2EE projects fail,"
    J2EE? I have seen reports that 90% of ALL IT PROJECTS fail. Nothing to do with J2EE I am afraid.

    I apolagise for this pointed criticism, but I am fed up with your banging on about stuff you dont know about.

    -Nick
  52. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Nick,

    Agreed. Let the case rest until next year.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  53. Do I care...!!![ Go to top ]

    the games companies play.I really do not care which company buys which other.i am interestd in using the best T&T out there.With companies following the principle of "cant fight ..buy ..bury " principle I am afraid we will miss out on some very good products and services.
  54. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <Q>
    Nick,

    <Q>I feel sorry for those moving to C# (.NET) - All those good tools and help from the Java community that they have to give up. Maybe one day .Net will catch up</Q>

    You mean; when will they catch up with Java Server Faces?
    </Q>

    That was me, not Nick. And no, I don't mean JSF. It was mostly in jest but in truth too. Just take a look around SourceForge and Apache. #1 on my list is Hibernate. With MS.Net, you do it MS's way or roll your own. You might be able to buy a tool.
  55. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <Q>
    I don't mean to sound rude either, but I'm speaking on behalf of the .NET architects on writing quality code and application architectures --that performs--.
    </Q>

    Wow. There are .Net architects? :) Why do you need them with .Net? It is so simple, school children can use it.
  56. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    "contact me when you can point me to a J2EE site with approximately the same performance as Merrill Lynch at 75 million transactions per day at 25 million users (that&#8217;s 21,000 transactions per second)"

    What do you mean by transaction? In the Merrill Lynch case it is probably a web page (which might have been delivered from cache without ever hitting a Web Server or Application Server).
    In any case, how about eBay as a high-volume J2EE site? I would be shocked if its volume wasn't much greater than Merrill Lynch site.
    By the way, I'll bet the Microsoft piece of the Merrill Lynch site is calling an existing legacy system (probably CICS) for the real business logic.
  57. 21,000 tranactions per/ second?[ Go to top ]

    I would be very interested in learning more about this system. What kind of database can handle that kind of a load. Do you mean hits to the web server as a transaction or is it 21,000 database transactions per second. If there is anything which you can share with us about this system I would be very interested.
  58. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Where did you see that Ebay ran on J2EE? Last I heard it was on IIS using ASP and ISAPI filters.
  59. EBay on J2EE[ Go to top ]

    Here:-
    Ebay version 3 to run on WebSphere J2EE application server
    http://www2.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=8906
  60. EBay on J2EE[ Go to top ]

    it runs on windows (just enter some url with case changed or ask http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=off&mode_w=on&site=www.ebay.com - they seam to use still NT 4.0)

    If you look at the source of the pages, you see references to http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll. So that's does not look like .net nor J2EE to me.

    But this Annoncement by IBM and EBAY was just 14 months ago. So obviously it takes some time to convert...
  61. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    I don't see having a lot of frameworks to be bad. A lot of frameworks means a lot of choices. I personally don't think Struts is perfect, but even in the case ASP.NET framework is better I really doubt it's perfect (I have never seen perfection and I really doubt it exists) The problems is in that case (.NET) you have nowhere to go, you don't have choices.
    Just my 2 c

        J.
  62. Ken:

    ".NET invites people to put data, business and application logic in forms"

    That may or may not be truth, but the fact is that if you are even only slightly trained on O-O practices, then you will try to build dedicated layers of functionality as loosely coupled as possible and that can perfectly be done with .NET. To say that Java is better at that than .NET (or the other way around) is simply wrong. So a sound developer will find her way in .NET just as easily as in Java. Talking specifically of the GUI layer, I have to say that you can be far more productive with ASP .NET than with the standard Java proposal (servlets + JSP), yes, I know there are a lot of alternative frameworks in Java, but this doesn't lead to choice as much as to confussion: the easiest way to start a fight among Java developers is to ask for the best GUI framework. This is a place where some standardization will do good for Java.
  63. <Q>
    That may or may not be truth, but the fact is that if you are even only slightly trained on O-O practices, then you will try to build dedicated layers of functionality as ...
    </Q>

    True. So who is going to get all those "MS programmers" to get even slightly trained? Hmmm - maybe someone should write a good book using C# examples. And can someone get those "MS magazines" to do an article on something more important than Web Services? Maybe then people will realize .Net (and VS.Net) isn't so easy.
  64. Mark,

    I think you are correct in that Java programmers are normally better programmers than (old) ASP programmers. They have to be!

    And of course I will more prefer Java programmers in my team.

    But that doesn't make the J2EE environment any better...

    "All that not kills you make you better" Nietze

    Jan Jones who leads a team of developers at DrKW (Dresdner Bank):(http://www.asp.net/Customers/CustomerDetail.aspx?tabIndex=8&CustomerId=261)

    "We write in C# exclusively, because almost all of us within the IT department of DrKW have a Java background. Moving from Java to C# takes about a day"

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  65. <Q>I think you are correct in that Java programmers are normally better programmers than (old) ASP programmers. They have to be!
    </Q>

    They only have to be slightly better. I have proof.


    <Q>
    But that doesn't make the J2EE environment any better...
    </Q>

    True. But you really should compare Java to .Net. Not J2EE. And even then.


    <Q>
    We write in C# exclusively, because almost all of us within the IT department of DrKW have a Java background. Moving from Java to C# takes about a day"
    </Q>

    Yep. Now try it with VBers and ASPers. Not as fun. That is the point. Now try and get them write code that can be used for 'the web' and an application. Real fun. I am having that fun right now. Excellent at ASP. But objects - not even close. BTW, the objects are in VB. I feel sorry for those moving to C# (.NET) - All those good tools and help from the Java community that they have to give up. Maybe one day .Net will catch up. :)

    I do both Java and MS technologies (VB6, ASP, .Net). I know.
  66. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Tomas: "Microsoft has better products. That's all. Try .NET and you will see. There is no reason to use Java on Windows OS now. Tom"

    Microsoft's biggest problem is that there is no reason to use the Windows OS now. ;-)

    Having used .NET quite a bit, it is true that (technologically speaking) .NET is a fine product, although immature, buggy and locked into Windows. If I were a developer locked into Windows already, I'd probably jump at .NET (no pun intended) just because it does all those ugly Microsoft technologies so much better (e.g. simple COM stuff is so easy to build now you don't even realize it's COM). It's just not a compelling choice for anyone either re-evaluating their "lock-in renewel offer" or anyone already having escaped the gravitational pull of the Windows platform lock-in.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!
  67. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <Q>Microsoft has better products</Q>

    Tom, the Java world have very good products too, the problem is only that the system "invites" to over engineer your projects. And remember the Java is cross platform - very good for products..

    Its more interesting to concentrate on best practices that to have a J2EE/.NET war.

    I am about to take a real in depth look at Webwork, why don’t you do the same?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  68. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    I'm speaking on behalf of the J2EE architects...
    </quote>

    <quote>
    I'm speaking on behalf of the .NET architects...
    </quote>

    What incredible arrogance. I work with J2EE and .Net, and neither one of you are speaking for me.

    <quote>
    A good architect can succeed with .NET or J2EE
    </quote>

    Ah, a lone voice in the wilderness...

    -- Jason
  69. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <Q>
    What incredible arrogance. I work with J2EE and .Net, and neither one of you are speaking for me.
    </Q>

    They said architects. Are you one? Is that arrogance? :)
  70. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    Hi Hi, Thank you Mark..
  71. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    They said architects. Are you one? Is that arrogance? :)
    </quote>

    You should know. You obviously speak for all of them. :-)
  72. You are right.[ Go to top ]

    <Q>
    You should know. You obviously speak for all of them.
    </Q>

    I do? Are you giving me the floor? I knight you Architect! BONG! Just don't sing any Elton John songs.
  73. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    <Darren>
    ....
    </Darren>

    Why is it that VB programmers get so defensive that they resort to name calling at the first sign cogent arguments that refute their beliefs?

    <Darren>
    Visual J++ was a damn good IDE
    </Darren>

    Spoken like a true believer. Darren, instead of indulging in name calling, why don't you do some research and figure out why Visual J++ never became popular with Java programmers. Maybe its was because it produced code that was not always platform idependent. Or that it lacked RMI support. Or Swing support.Visual J++ was the best IDE that could not produce any cross-platform java code. Microsft JVM -- even Micsoft concedes that its a bad implemenation.


    So let me re-iterate , this time hopefully it will get through to you : yes , Microsoft indeed do a awful job with Java.

    And bear in mind , at no point have I called Microsoft evil. I love Micosoft stock and my Xbox and my home LAN of Win2k servers , my MSN messenger. Sometimes I even watch MSNBC !!!

    But VB programmers and VB language are an altogether different matter !
  74. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    Visual J++ was slick when it came out. Until I saw IntelliJ's IDEA earlier this year I thought J++ had the best user interface.

    It was fast, used little memory, had great intellisense, code helpers etc. Unfortunatly if you wanted to use the coolest parts it was windows only Java. And it was stuck on the 1.1.7 (or was it 1.1.8) jdk. It had problems supporting new apis and features but as far as code editors went it was great. I wish MS hadn't canned it because it was a great ide (like the rest of visual studio).
  75. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    ...Sometimes I even watch MSNBC !!!
    </quote>

    LOL, lovely dude. Lovely.

    O
  76. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    DD,

    Easy tiger. My one and only point was that J++ was a good IDE. That's it. Yes, the JVM sucked - but I didn't use it in production. Also, I never developed Windows code with J++ so I had no need to access COM objects. When I used J++ I was writing pure Java that was deployed to a Linux server.

    My original post was simply an effort to put a moron in line who thought that the majority of microsoft coders were VB hacks - I mean, has he never heard of C++? I just wish these discussions could be meaningful without the needless Microsoft bashing that we've all heard before and bores me, and I assume others, to tears.

    Anyway - enough said.

    Darren.
  77. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    .Net... J2EE...

    I've used them both on medium sized projects in the past 18 months...

    I hate them both.
  78. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    Darren!

    Speaking of VB hacks -- there is no shame in being a VB hack -- I am one -- and I am also a Java hack ,Perl hack and Python hack and I could be a Fortran hack if I needed money bad enough. I like to think of myself as a handyman with a tool belt -- my tools being APIs and languages.And yes, numerically speaking VB programmers far outnumber both Java and Visual C hacks. And in all the projects I have done in VB, I never once used UML.

    MS is a huge company and it impacts our lives daily and hence its is subject to arguments, even repetitive arguments, against it. It doesn't need you to indulge in verbal fisticuffs.Whats with the 'moron' thing -- is that all you got ? Keep this site clean!


    -dd
  79. wasteful idea[ Go to top ]

    Heck, I still use J++ too. ;-)
  80. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    I know that Rose has a lot of MS support in it (or did last time I worked with it). But I don't think the market for UML modeling tools is as large in the COM world as it has been in the Java world. For one, the most popular COM language, VB, isn't really object-oriented so a lot of the benefits of modeling with UML are lost. Believe me, I've done it. The value-proposition of using a modeling tool with Java is much higher. Now that may change with .NET but nonetheless, Rose's history with the COM world wouldn't make me think that MS would be hurt much at all if all COM/.NET support were dropped from it. Besides, I doubt that killing .NET support in Rose was IBM's intention when they purchased Rational. They most likely were after the people who put together Rational XDE, which uses IBM's own Eclipse framework. I think you'll see that shift into the WSAD lineup far before you'll see any attempt to rig Rose into the IBM product line. As for Requisite Pro, well, that should be taken out and shot. Either way, like I said, I don't think that MS is too interested in the lack of .NET support in Rational products. I don't believe that a potential adopter of .NET technologies, based on those most likely to move in that direction, will cite the lack of Rational Rose as a reason for going for Java instead.
  81. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    <Q>
    I think Microsoft is very aware, that when IBM is acquiring Rational, the .Net support in Rational will eventually suffer, maybe even die. Also they are aware, that if they can acquire Rational, they have the power to drop the Java support in Rational. Since Rational has a huge user base, this is what the counter bid is about.
    </Q>

    Shows how little you know about IBM and their products and services.

    Do you know what the standalone XDE product is built on? Eclipse.
  82. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    I agree with Drew's line of thought. I am not entirely sure about the conclusions. I would have thought it would make some sort of sense for MS to purchase Rational precisely because they want to develop a convincing presence in the Enterprise. Moreover they would thwart IBM, which could be a good strategic move. Large companies (so it seems to me) are very concerned with their mind share, their image and projecting one of confidence is important. I think that in this case, on balance, this would argue against MS acquiring Rational. However, realistically, there is a whole in the MS offering at this point, not just the tools but the consultancy skills Rational have and the trust in them.
    I also think that it is a very sensitive time in terms of anti-trust litigation for MS to make such a move. It could best be called reckless.
    However, there is that $40-$50 billion in the bank. (This roughly equates to the amount of money the whole UK economy is going to have to borrow according to current forecasts.) In the end the money must be spent. And with very low interests rates arguably is best spent soon. I guess the people who will make the best money are the ones who get in the way of that spend.
    There is certainly enough money there to be able to support the risk of making such a bid. That is if it all went pear shaped and they lost good will, I can’t see it would be fatal. Seems like a finely balanced thing to me.
  83. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    Slip - hole not whole
  84. Borland Buyout Doubtful[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    To all of the people out there fearing the approach of the "evil empire", you're getting ridiculous. There is no good financial reason for MS to buy Borland. Hell, there isn't even a good reason for them to buy Rational. If you think they're going to pay all of that money just to put a single Java tools developer out of business, then I'm glad you're not the CEO of any company that I invest in. It makes absolutely NO sense to spend the money it would cost to buy Borland (and Togethersoft with them) if they didn't intend to use the products. There is too much else out there that would keep the Java market going. MS would gain little advantage from the money required. Plus, I think the whole idea of buying a company to "put it to bed" is a little nonsensical, especially for a company in the midst of anti-trust proceedings. MS has gotten to where it is today for many reasons but I don't believe stupidity was one of them.
    </quote>

    I don't know if I can agree with that. There is a limit to what 'makes good business sense'. Once you reach the point where money doesn't matter (and believe me, I'm sure money is one of the last things Microsoft is ever really worried about), you can start to do things like this to improve your competitive advantage and to reengineer the market to your liking. It's not ethical and it might not even be legal, but has that ever stopped Microsoft? They look out for their business and their business alone.

    I think you also have to look at the long term. Even if they 'waste' their money on aquiring any organization, they will probably gain in back in the long run because buyers will have even less choice to work with.

    Also, it makes sense to buy a company to get at their assets like code. That doesn't meant they will reship their products - it means that they reverse engineer the code, take what they want and implement it into their products if they so desire. Or, they can just use the staff for other products they had in mind. It's a pretty easy way to get a good set of developers if they aren't against working for MS. I'm sure they can change their hearts.

    The point is, it's not about putting 'it to bed'. It's about engineering the market and exploiting the resources and the buyers. Despite the legal problems, I wouldn't count them out on trying it anyway.
  85. This is just a case of the stock market frightening itself.

    Rational will simply be a millstone to whomever buys it; they cannot support their own products, because they got them by buying other companies and all the original developers left. Microsoft *might* be able to throw enough resources at reverse-engineering these things to bring them back to life, but it would be more trouble than it was worth.

    As for Microsoft buying Borland, their only possible reason to do that would be to put Borland to bed, hoping thereby to obstruct the trend in the Java tool space towards greater usability.
  86. Quote:
    <As for Microsoft buying Borland, their only possible reason to do that would be to put Borland to bed, hoping thereby to obstruct the trend in the Java tool space towards greater usability.>

    Hmm...err - is that not a good enough reason? ;-)
  87. I agree. Microsoft has enough resources to develop rational style products on their own.
  88. MS bying borland.
    Maybe an occasion for MS to own their own J2EE stack to rumble with IBM and BEA?
  89. Good. I hope that both Rational and Borland get bought up. Neither of them produce software I like to use.


    Tom.
  90. I'm just curious.. do an awful lot of people have *way* too much free time? I mean, every time any product is mentioned here that references J2EE, .NET, Windows, Linux, Sun/Solaris, IBM, HP, a Computer, a Rock, a small mammal, or a angry mountain goat, people pull out the same old discussion.

    Wouldn't it be easier for one person to just go back and cut and paste the old discussion? Perhaps we could have somebody in charge of updating it every month to add new flames and unsubstantiated claims of new technologies, just to keep it interesting? Better yet, we could post it to a specific page, and then not have to read the same debate in the article message threads again and again.

    I fully agree that discussing issues around J2EE and .NET with regards to potential buyouts of Borland and Rational fit this discussion. Bickering over all of these other issues obscures any real discussion on the topic at hand.
  91. !!! :) !!!
  92. If M$ grabs Borland it must be listed as a terrorist org.
    It is just a mean way to smash Kylix and Linux.
    We must all rise to the evil!!!!!
  93. May MS buy Rational and Borland unite with BEA !
  94. Microsoft should by Borland and integrate J-Builder to Visualstudio , ship the .NET-Server with Borland Application Server ( with no extra charge) and watch their growing server market piece. This will put more pressure on Linux , IBM, Bea and Sun than all this silly .NET stuff.
  95. Hi.

    I just want to add some points:

    - Borland already supports .Net via Together ControlCenter (and Delphi & JBuilder to come)
    - Rational already supports .Net via XDE, which is very well integrated with Visual Studio.Net
    - Both Rational and Borland are in the high-end market, and this is exactly the market Microsoft is trying to access now. They are trying to move from the VB/client-server market into the multi-layer segment, where J2EE (and mainframes) rule today!
    - Borland and TCC are offering an IDEs, which can compete with Visual Studio. I don't think MS will be allowed to buy-out these products
    - But MS could be very interested in Rational's UML modelling support, which could be a valuable extension to their development tools.

    Just my humble opinion.

    Best regards
    Glenn Petersen
    (J2EE) software architect
  96. I have heard from some IBM people IBM has one of the biggest share in Rational. I do not know if this is true, maybe someone can check this out?

    If so, chances for MS are small fortunately. Like it or not, Rational tools are being used more and more. I work for a very big worldwide IT Services company which has already accepted RUP as the defacto development method and a lot of our customers use RUP and the Rational tooling too or are at least evaluating them.

    Rational = $$$!