WinBatch Tech Support Home

Database Search

If you can't find the information using the categories below, post a question over in our WinBatch Tech Support Forum.

TechHome

WinBatch
Miscellaneous

Can't find the information you are looking for here? Then leave a message over on our WinBatch Tech Support Forum.

Winbatch vs Java

Question:

I use and like Java for web-based and other network centric applications. But for solutions that require file manipulation, read-only database queries, FTP, and lots of other things, I prefer Winbatch. Compared to Java/J2EE, Winbatch solutions are just quicker to develop and easier to support.

Unfortunately, my coworkers, who don't know WB, think its a "UI bolt-on" and not enterprise ready.

Do any of you have any suggestions for a way to explain the virtues of Winbatch vs Java? Do you have any reasons why you would use Winbatch instead of Java?

I'd like to help my coworkers understand that there really are less expensive ways to develop enterprise applications other than J2EE.

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Answer:

Can you clarify what is meant by the phrase "UI bolt-on"?

Well, even J2EE doesn't have to be expensive. With the Open Source tools available, such as Eclipse, and the Eclipse plug-in called Enterprise Workbench [http://www.myeclipseide.com], you can do some very sophisticated J2EE application development w/o spending insane amounts of money on development tools.

However, more to the point of WinBatch vs. Java/J2EE, here's my own view of it.

Java is intended to write-once, run anywhere. Because of that, it quite often has to deal with the lowest common denominator effect, whereby it only has functionality that is common to the JVM and the Java classes you use with it. Anything that is platform-specific requries the use of native API functions that are called via JNI [Java Native Interface], which then makes your Java code less portable.

With WinBatch, you are limited to running on the Windows platform, but you get a significant amount of platform-specific functionality. If you are writing applications that need Windows-specific functionality that is not available from within Java then WinBatch is a better choice. Anything that involves managing user accounts, the registry, NTFS permissions, native NT services, controlling other Windows applications, etc... is easy to do in WinBatch.

User Reply:

"UI bolt-on" was the phrase one of my coworkers used. It was intended as an unflattering remark suggesting that WB is only a tool to control a User Interface.

Agree that that the development environment itself doesn't have to be expensive. However, when I need to clarify just about anything in Java/J2ee, its a search and hunt marathon. With WB, its usually just a quick visit to the help files where I find excellent source code examples, or here, to the forum.

Answer:

That's kind of ironic, since the ability to control the UI of another application is a non-trivial feature/function, and is one which WinBatch excels at. Although that is only one of the many things that WinBatch can do, I'd be greatly surprised if a Java application could turn around and perform the same task on other Windows applications that aren't written in Java.

One of the core features of WinBatch is that it exposes enough of the innards of Windows to allow for quick & easy administration of the Windows operating system in a programmatic manner without depending on the GUI admin tools in Windows.

This really shouldn't be a WinBatch vs. Java "bashing" discussion, though. It should more appropriately be a discussion about the features & functionality of the tools that are available to solve a problem or do a job, with an eye towards what is the most appropriate tool to be used in any given situation. I like tools, and I prefer to keep a well rounded set of tools on hand to be able to meet any need. I don't have any one tool that meets every need I have, but WinBatch comes closest to being able to do that. I have many projects that start out in WinBatch and they grow over time. In some cases, I have to re-write in C/C++, Delphi [Object Pascal]. I can't think of anything I've written in WinBatch that ever had to be ported over to VB or Java, though. WinBatch very nicely fits into the "One Size Fits Most" category when it comes to developing simple to moderately complex applications that serve to automate administration processes.

Java, along with VB, provides a better environment for developing a GUI, while WinBatch is much stronger at the low-level down & dirty "grunt work" that is so much more difficult to perform in other languages. 

Article ID:   W16511

File Created: 2005:02:18:12:21:06
Last Updated: 2005:02:18:12:21:06