.NET vs. Enterprise Java: Who's Got Better Security?

[Jeff Jones]

Some of the responses, if answered, would be restating the same things I already
said. So I'll skip some of it.

>With IBM, Oracle, Bea, etc. java is nothing and Sun knows it.
LOL! I'd say a lot of programmers have discovered the last couple of years
that Java is nothing. Sorry, I know that is not what you meant, but it was
so tempting.

>Second, depending on the application, it
>can be cost effective.
That I agree with. Total life cycle cost includes labor. If a development
staff is Java experienced, retraining and turnover costs may exceed the cost
savings of going Microsoft. That is what managers are supposed to figure
out.

>>The company that is porting it was mentioned in an article I read (not

>>from MS) where MS is cooperating.
>Which one?
Check out http://www.ximian.com/devzone/projects/mono.html and
http://www.ximian.com/about_us/press..._announce.html
and
http://go-mono.com/ and
http://go-mono.com/faq.html
It explicitly states that MS is not helping with the project, but they have
provided conversation back and forth with Ximian, and isn't opposing them
or suing them (as Sun is wont to do over Java). With no profit motive for
MS, that, to me, is MS cooperating.

>Then you don't understand life cycle. You want the life cycle of an
>application to be as long as possible. A life cycle is not just
>designing coding and implementing. You want the iterations to be short.
LOL! I guess you are the one who doesn't understand the common understanding
of life cycle. A life cycle is the time from requirements definition to
replacement of the system. Subcomponents (hardware & software) may have
their own lifecycles. The longer the life cycle, the more the cost is spread
out, reducing annual budgets. If you would like for me to explain the software
development life cycle in more depth, I'd be glad to.

>Benchmarks are usually rigged. Talk to IBM. The have a hand in all
>platforms.
IBM's only long term success has been in mainframes. They are not a major
player in PCs (especially after the bonehead PS2 move back in the 80s), in
UNIX servers, or Windows servers. And it would be hard to name any successful
non-mainframe software they make. The TPC benchmarks may not reflect everyone's
real-world use, but they are the same standards for all, and not designed
by MS. Yet, MS wins. Hands down.

>OO design and coding does take long than proceedural. But the design and
>coding iterations can be shorter. It is not an insult just realility.
Neither I, in using VB & VB.NET, nor my former Java colleagues, did procedural
programming. Maybe years ago in the VB3, Clipper, FORTRAN, and COBOL days,
but not in a long time. VB4, 5, and 6 were sufficiently OO that apps could
be developed using OO techniques in VB. In fact, at a former job, I could
take Rational Rose files for Java development, and use them to create VB
class files with identical interfaces. And vice versa. The only drawback,
that VB.NET fixes, is that inheritance was interface inheritance only. But,
using good code reuse techniques, that was easily overcome.

>How long ago was this Java developement? Java works and works well. The
>fact that there is good Java development going on leaves the only answer
>to be they weren't that experienced.
It was 3 years ago, and they are still doing it today. I keep in touch,
and they keep advancing their product line. I didn't say Java doesn't work
- I said it is more costly to develop in it. And that I stand by. I guarantee
you that whatever your Java apps are, I could develop them in VB in less
man-hours for less cost that perform better.

>I've used both (VB more than any Java) and I am more productive in my Java
>IDE.
Too bad someone won't finance putting that to the test. Give each of us
the same project, and see who finishes first and best.

>I was using 'experienced' the way you were. There are many VB
>programmers. The majority of them are not 'experienced'.
I'll agree there is a higher percentage of sloppy VB programmers, simply
because MS makes its tools more usable and available to the "average person".
But in corporate, professional IT teams, VB is the dominant language. Java
has been a disappointment. Failed in the browser, too dog slow in the middle
tier.

>Yes, bugs are bad. But usually programmer error not language.
Some languages are more difficult to get right, hence the higher incidence
of bugs during initial development.

>You said Java has greater platform requirements. Just proving it doesn't.
You didn't prove that. I am talking about real world Java apps that actually
do something. JVMs are fat. Always have been. Truly compiled (to machine
code) Java programs are much better, but then you lose the portability.

>By the way, they make good firewalls. And embedded computers.
Windows is taking a larger market share of embedded OSs than Linux. And
firewalls are made by the software, not the OS. But UNIX is a good use for
a dedicated firewall.

>Lots of 386 and 486 computers are in use today.
Not as servers in corporate America.

>But VB6 is dead.
Tell that to the millions of people using it, the numerous third party component
vendors that are still selling OCXs and DLLs and VB add-ins. There are still
sites using VB5, VB4, and even VB3. Probably on your 386s and 486s.

>VB.Net is totally different.
No, not totally. You can make 1 to 1 corelations between COM objects used
in VB6 and namespaces used in VB.NET. It's still using objects. But how
you access them, name them, and organize them is totally different. I work
with both, and it is no big deal. Most of the whiners I have heard are just
folks who don't want to change with the times. I am an old guy with many
years of experience, but one constant is that you have to be willing to try
new things and learn new technologies to remain relevant. I tried Java,
learned it, wrote a few small apps, assessed it versus MS technologies, and
chose MS. You obviously did the same, and chose Sun's Java. Nothing wrong
with that.

>And it and C# resemble Java
Well, C# sure does! But VB.NET is way more like VB6 than like Java. The
CLR certainly learned some valuable lessons from Java. Just another example
of MS being able to provide better tools than Sun, give the same concepts.
MS never met a good idea they were afraid to steal.

>>Come on, name a company who has extended the Java language or made a Java
>>VM without Sun's permission.
>IBM.
Oh, please. You think IBM did *anything* to Java without Sun's permission?
Remember, Java was rejected by the standards agencies in the US and Europe
because Sun wouldn't let go. MS didn't make that mistake with the ECMA and
C#.

>>>Could you make mine run? It crashes alot.
>>Probably. Are you running NT, Win2K, or XP? Whose JVM do you use? Are
>>you sure your drivers were certified for the OS? Have you checked for

>>memory leaks in non-MS apps? I've had NT servers than run for months
>>before being rebooted, and only then to upgrade something. Win2K and XP

>>do the same.
>It has nothing to do with Java. It is Windows. You are lucky. Must not
>be doing anything complicated.
Cute. If you knew Windows servers very well, you would know most Windows
problems are untested video and other drivers, poorly made third party DLLs,
etc. I have never found a Windows server that was crashing that I couldn't
trace the problem to third party software that was buggy. Now, if you'd
like to discuss the numerous things that break when applying minor UNIX patches,
let me know. I saw that all the time with Solaris servers and third party
UNIX apps. Never had that problem with Windows service packs, which are
less numerous than UNIX patches.

>No people don't 'want' Windows. The are ill informed or aren't given a

>choice.
OK. Blame the customer. What they really want is a cryptic OS, for which
there is very little commercially successful software. Like Linux. In this
country, what the consumer wants, they get.

> Go to Best buy and find a computer with anything besides Windows. Find
>one without any OS. You won't.
Of course. Why would they make (meaning provide, support, and advertise)
PCs with an OS that customers don't want? Linux is publicized everywhere.
Yet, those stupid consumers - they are just too ignorant to know they really
want Linux.

>> Like I said, Windows and UNIX is the vast majority of server OSs.
>Are they? The major of server applications are in COBOL and they run on
>Mainframes.
I'll agree most or at least a significant percentage of COBOL apps run on
mainframes. A sizable amount of them run on minis, which run UNIX or some
proprietary non-UNIX OS. But COBOL apps no longer constitute the majority
of existing apps. Lines of code maybe, since 4GL languages have less lines
of code for the same app. But there are more VB apps than COBOL. And more
VB server apps than Java server apps in corporate America. Why? because
it works best and it is chosen because it produces results.

>Good as gone. I guess that means OS2 isn't gone either.
A lot more VB6 currently in use than OS2, which is about as rare as a 5 leaf
clover. OS2 is the perfect example of why IBM is a software midget outside
the mainframe world.

>Try doing MVC.
What is MVC? Microsoft Visual C? Define what *application* you would suggest
cannot be done in VB, but can be in Java.

>If OS2 is going like gangbusters then yes.
And we know it's not. The main use for OS2 machines today is boat anchors.

>I didn't mention any Java beans. Obviously you are ill informed in Java
>and OpenSource.
OpenSource is useless. As for Java, take J2EE, JDO, or whatever the Java
emphasis of the day is. It is still a poor performer. Not because it can't
be, but because Sun has done such a poor job with it.

>>I would recommend taking a look at http://www.objectwatch.com/, run by

>>one of CORBA's founders, Roger Sessions. He is an expert on both sides,

>>and gives good advice on both.
>I don't use CORBA. Maybe that is the problem.
I was talking about Java. Had you checked out his web site, you would see
a numebr of good articles he has done on Java. So if you don't use CORBA,
what do you use, Java RMI?

>Ok. I am constant looking at trends. Linux use is on the rise. So is

>Java.
Not in the US. For example, if something has 1% of market share, and rises
to 3% of market share, that is accurately said to be a 200% increase. If
the major competitor in the field has 45% of market share, and gains 3% to
48% (1.35% growth), it can accurately be said the former grew faster than
the latter. But given the actual market share, it is irrelevant. In general,
where profits matter, MS is the technology of choice. Where profits don't
matter, it's Java, UNIX, etc.

Personally, I think DevX, or somebody like Fawcette Publications that is
neutral to MS and Sun, could get a lot of publicity having a VB.NET versus
Java contest (employees or contractors of MS and SUN would be excluded).
The top 5 or 10 winners on each side could be brought to Comdex or some
such event to display the apps, and then name a winner. Of course, with
Sun's posse of lawyers, there are legal considerations when Java loses.

[MarkN]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. You seem to miss the point
of most of my statements and you probably feel the same about me.

I personally have experience in VB, .Net and Java. You don't. I've done
OO in VB(as best can be done) and Java. VB OO doesn't even come close to
what can be done in .Net or Java.

Java works well for many companies and runs on small platforms and has greatly
improved in 3 years. It is no more bloated than Windows or MS Office. You
had a bad, second hand experience.

VB.Net and C# and Java are very much alike. VB as you have known and used
it is legacy. MS has a tool that will take Java code and make it C#. They
can't be that different.

"Jeff Jones" <jjones4@711Online.net> wrote:
>
>Some of the responses, if answered, would be restating the same things I
already
>said. So I'll skip some of it.
>
>>With IBM, Oracle, Bea, etc. java is nothing and Sun knows it.
>LOL! I'd say a lot of programmers have discovered the last couple of years
>that Java is nothing. Sorry, I know that is not what you meant, but it
was
>so tempting.

Good One! Thing is MS didn't think it was - that is why we have .Net and
not VB7.

>
>>Second, depending on the application, it
>>can be cost effective.
>That I agree with. Total life cycle cost includes labor. If a development
>staff is Java experienced, retraining and turnover costs may exceed the
cost
>savings of going Microsoft. That is what managers are supposed to figure
>out.

Not really. Any of the .Net languages will be easy for Java'ers. The conversion
is/will be tougher for most VBers. Don't take yourself as the normal VBer
- you are not - you are way above average.

>
>>>The company that is porting it was mentioned in an article I read (not
>
>>>from MS) where MS is cooperating.
>>Which one?
>Check out http://www.ximian.com/devzone/projects/mono.html and
>http://www.ximian.com/about_us/press..._announce.html
>and
>http://go-mono.com/ and
>http://go-mono.com/faq.html
>It explicitly states that MS is not helping with the project, but they have
>provided conversation back and forth with Ximian, and isn't opposing them
>or suing them (as Sun is wont to do over Java). With no profit motive for
>MS, that, to me, is MS cooperating.
To me that is not cooperating. All MS has done is provide enough of .Net
to make the easily swayed think they are being open but not enough to help
it become a reality. This is a risk for MS but one they have to take.

Not yet. Wait till it works and people stop buying their tools and platforms.

>
>>Then you don't understand life cycle. You want the life cycle of an
>>application to be as long as possible. A life cycle is not just
>>designing coding and implementing. You want the iterations to be short.
>LOL! I guess you are the one who doesn't understand the common understanding
>of life cycle. A life cycle is the time from requirements definition to
>replacement of the system. Subcomponents (hardware & software) may have
>their own lifecycles. The longer the life cycle, the more the cost is spread
>out, reducing annual budgets. If you would like for me to explain the software
>development life cycle in more depth, I'd be glad to.

You are the one who said it should be short. ???? The problem is VB is more
procedural than OO and it contributes to shorter software lifetimes. (Remember
before you respond, MS is dumping VB for their version(s) of Java)

>
>>Benchmarks are usually rigged. Talk to IBM. The have a hand in all
>>platforms.
>IBM's only long term success has been in mainframes. They are not a major
>player in PCs (especially after the bonehead PS2 move back in the 80s),
in
>UNIX servers, or Windows servers.

Look again - IBM just passed Sun in Unix servers. Everywhere I go I see
IBM PCs

> And it would be hard to name any successful
>non-mainframe software they make.

Websphere, Lotus Notes, DB2, MQ Series, VAJ for starters. I'm sure you will
pooh-pooh this list.

>The TPC benchmarks may not reflect everyone's
>real-world use, but they are the same standards for all, and not designed
>by MS. Yet, MS wins. Hands down.

Believe what you will.

>
>>OO design and coding does take long than proceedural. But the design and
>>coding iterations can be shorter. It is not an insult just realility.
>Neither I, in using VB & VB.NET, nor my former Java colleagues, did procedural
>programming. Maybe years ago in the VB3, Clipper, FORTRAN, and COBOL days,
>but not in a long time. VB4, 5, and 6 were sufficiently OO that apps could
>be developed using OO techniques in VB. In fact, at a former job, I could
>take Rational Rose files for Java development, and use them to create VB
>class files with identical interfaces. And vice versa. The only drawback,
>that VB.NET fixes, is that inheritance was interface inheritance only.
But,
>using good code reuse techniques, that was easily overcome.

And inheritance is a big thing. How about reflection? How about anytype
of OO in VB forms? Trying to do OO in VB is much more difficult to do and
understand. Most have not done it. You are the exception not the rule.

>
>>How long ago was this Java developement? Java works and works well. The
>>fact that there is good Java development going on leaves the only answer
>>to be they weren't that experienced.
>It was 3 years ago, and they are still doing it today. I keep in touch,
>and they keep advancing their product line. I didn't say Java doesn't work
>- I said it is more costly to develop in it. And that I stand by. I guarantee
>you that whatever your Java apps are, I could develop them in VB in less
>man-hours for less cost that perform better.

Maybe true if only because of your tenure with the tool not because of the
tool. In a very distributed environment I doubt it. Again, what are the
long term costs? We just won't agree here.

>
>>I've used both (VB more than any Java) and I am more productive in my Java
>>IDE.
>Too bad someone won't finance putting that to the test. Give each of
us
>the same project, and see who finishes first and best.
Would be cool. The problem is both of us have much more experience with
VB than I have with Java. The only real comparison is with one person coding
in both languages having the equal amount of experience and knowledge.

>
>>I was using 'experienced' the way you were. There are many VB
>>programmers. The majority of them are not 'experienced'.
>I'll agree there is a higher percentage of sloppy VB programmers, simply
>because MS makes its tools more usable and available to the "average person".

The VB IDE is no more usable than my current Java IDE. You'll just have
to take my word for it. Or not. I daily use both. Current tools - not
three year old tools. A lot changes in 6 months.

> But in corporate, professional IT teams, VB is the dominant language.
Java
>has been a disappointment. Failed in the browser, too dog slow in the middle
>tier.

What news are you reading? I see none of this. Only from those who can
learn anything new or did it the wrong way or those torqued at Sun for being
a dork sometimes do I see anything resembling this.


>
>>Yes, bugs are bad. But usually programmer error not language.
>Some languages are more difficult to get right, hence the higher incidence
>of bugs during initial development.

Well then VB.Net and C# and J# are really going to be horrible. Haven't
heard anything like that about .Net. Just the opposite.

>
>>You said Java has greater platform requirements. Just proving it doesn't.
>You didn't prove that. I am talking about real world Java apps that actually
>do something. JVMs are fat. Always have been. Truly compiled (to machine
>code) Java programs are much better, but then you lose the portability.

So why do JVMs run on cell phones?

>
>>By the way, they make good firewalls. And embedded computers.
>Windows is taking a larger market share of embedded OSs than Linux. And
>firewalls are made by the software, not the OS. But UNIX is a good use
for
>a dedicated firewall.

You missed the point. I was saying there is a use for something you think
is useless. Again you aren't reading the same news I am. I don't see MS
much in the [total] embedded market.

>
>>Lots of 386 and 486 computers are in use today.
>Not as servers in corporate America

That is not the only use of a computer. And since corporate America can
afford to spend so much ... or can they?

>
>>But VB6 is dead.
>Tell that to the millions of people using it, the numerous third party component
>vendors that are still selling OCXs and DLLs and VB add-ins. There are
still
>sites using VB5, VB4, and even VB3. Probably on your 386s and 486s.

Cut a chicken's head off and it still runs around.
Some people don't mind the smell of death.

>
>>VB.Net is totally different.
>No, not totally. You can make 1 to 1 corelations between COM objects used
>in VB6 and namespaces used in VB.NET. It's still using objects. But how
>you access them, name them, and organize them is totally different. I work
>with both, and it is no big deal. Most of the whiners I have heard are
just
>folks who don't want to change with the times. I am an old guy with many
>years of experience, but one constant is that you have to be willing to
try
>new things and learn new technologies to remain relevant. I tried Java,
>learned it, wrote a few small apps, assessed it versus MS technologies,
and
>chose MS. You obviously did the same, and chose Sun's Java. Nothing wrong
>with that.

I use it more than VB6. As usual, people mistake my defense of Java and
correction of half truths as having chosen Java over MS. It seems you didn't
use Java enough or a current version to get a true sense of how good it really
is.

>
>>And it and C# resemble Java
>Well, C# sure does! But VB.NET is way more like VB6 than like Java. The
>CLR certainly learned some valuable lessons from Java. Just another example
>of MS being able to provide better tools than Sun, give the same concepts.
> MS never met a good idea they were afraid to steal.

The Japanese do the same. It is not that they provide better tools. It
is easier to provide better when you let someone else go first. And obviously
you haven't looked at the current set of Java tools.


>
>>>Come on, name a company who has extended the Java language or made a Java
>>>VM without Sun's permission.
>>IBM.
>Oh, please. You think IBM did *anything* to Java without Sun's permission?

Yes. Eclipse really has Sun torqued.

> Remember, Java was rejected by the standards agencies in the US and Europe
>because Sun wouldn't let go.

Not rejected. Sun pulled out. If they had not, MS would have been free
to get their tenacles into it to.

>MS didn't make that mistake with the ECMA and
>C#.

Smoke and mirrors. You think C# will be anything with MS's control? And
that MS isn't beyond forking it?

>
>>>>Could you make mine run? It crashes alot.
>>>Probably. Are you running NT, Win2K, or XP? Whose JVM do you use? Are
>>>you sure your drivers were certified for the OS? Have you checked for
>
>>>memory leaks in non-MS apps? I've had NT servers than run for months

>>>before being rebooted, and only then to upgrade something. Win2K and
XP
>
>>>do the same.
>>It has nothing to do with Java. It is Windows. You are lucky. Must not
>>be doing anything complicated.
>Cute. If you knew Windows servers very well, you would know most Windows
>problems are untested video and other drivers, poorly made third party DLLs,
>etc. I have never found a Windows server that was crashing that I couldn't
>trace the problem to third party software that was buggy. Now, if you'd
>like to discuss the numerous things that break when applying minor UNIX
patches,
>let me know. I saw that all the time with Solaris servers and third party
>UNIX apps. Never had that problem with Windows service packs, which are
>less numerous than UNIX patches.

Not talking about servers. But I sure the same applies.

Your problems with Sun servers is probably why IBM is now in the lead. Unix
runs well other places.

Let's see the group you worked with had problems with their servers and software.
But many others with the same software and hardware don't. I wonder what
the trouble is? Could it be those using it?

>
>>No people don't 'want' Windows. The are ill informed or aren't given a
>
>>choice.
>OK. Blame the customer. What they really want is a cryptic OS, for which
>there is very little commercially successful software. Like Linux. In
this
>country, what the consumer wants, they get.

Come on. Linux is not that cryptic any more. That is just FUD.

We want big vehicles that don't guzzle gas. We don't have that.

>
>> Go to Best buy and find a computer with anything besides Windows. Find
>>one without any OS. You won't.
>Of course. Why would they make (meaning provide, support, and advertise)
>PCs with an OS that customers don't want? Linux is publicized everywhere.
> Yet, those stupid consumers - they are just too ignorant to know they really
>want Linux.

I am not saying they want Linux. The majority of American consumers are
swayed by advertising. I am not saying they are stupid. Just ignorant.

The companies aren't providing them because it will cost them more because
of MS and the aren't sure how well they sell.

>
>>> Like I said, Windows and UNIX is the vast majority of server OSs.
>>Are they? The major of server applications are in COBOL and they run on
>>Mainframes.
>I'll agree most or at least a significant percentage of COBOL apps run on
>mainframes. A sizable amount of them run on minis, which run UNIX or some
>proprietary non-UNIX OS. But COBOL apps no longer constitute the majority
>of existing apps. Lines of code maybe, since 4GL languages have less lines
>of code for the same app. But there are more VB apps than COBOL. And more
>VB server apps than Java server apps in corporate America. Why? because
>it works best and it is chosen because it produces results.

There really aren't that many server VB apps. Most MS server stuff is C++
or ASP. VB is only used because it is perceived as easy - not a reality.

>
>>Good as gone. I guess that means OS2 isn't gone either.
>A lot more VB6 currently in use than OS2, which is about as rare as a 5
leaf
>clover. OS2 is the perfect example of why IBM is a software midget outside
>the mainframe world.

Again you miss the point. The fact the something that something is 'in use'
doesn't mean it isn't 'gone'. And you would be supprised at how much OS2
is still in use. Just as much as you would about Linux.

First, IBM is NOT a midget outside the Mainframe world. You just don't have
the experience or knowledge of their operations. Second, OS2 didn't suceed
because, as usual, users don't know a good thing when they see it.

>
>>Try doing MVC.
>What is MVC? Microsoft Visual C? Define what *application* you would suggest
>cannot be done in VB, but can be in Java.

Look it up. If you've really don't alot of OO you'd know. Others in VB.Tech
do know.

>
>>If OS2 is going like gangbusters then yes.
>And we know it's not. The main use for OS2 machines today is boat >anchors.

So you agree with me.

>
>>I didn't mention any Java beans. Obviously you are ill informed in Java
>>and OpenSource.
>OpenSource is useless. As for Java, take J2EE, JDO, or whatever the Java
>emphasis of the day is. It is still a poor performer. Not because it can't
>be, but because Sun has done such a poor job with it.

Again, you know NOTHING about Open Source because it isn't useless. The
successful use of Java in the World only proves your statements as false.

>
>>>I would recommend taking a look at http://www.objectwatch.com/, run by
>
>>>one of CORBA's founders, Roger Sessions. He is an expert on both sides,
>
>>>and gives good advice on both.
>>I don't use CORBA. Maybe that is the problem.
>I was talking about Java. Had you checked out his web site, you would see
>a numebr of good articles he has done on Java. So if you don't use CORBA,
>what do you use, Java RMI?

No.

>
>>Ok. I am constant looking at trends. Linux use is on the rise. So is
>
>>Java.
>Not in the US.

Yes it is. I'm actually supprise at its usage.

>For example, if something has 1% of market share, and rises
>to 3% of market share, that is accurately said to be a 200% increase. If
>the major competitor in the field has 45% of market share, and gains 3%
to
>48% (1.35% growth), it can accurately be said the former grew faster than
>the latter. But given the actual market share, it is irrelevant. In general,
>where profits matter, MS is the technology of choice. Where profits don't
>matter, it's Java, UNIX, etc.
Your repeating this is just sour grapes. You had a bad experience with Java
and/or couldn't learn it. So now you think it is crap. All the success
stories say otherwise.


>
>Personally, I think DevX, or somebody like Fawcette Publications that is
>neutral to MS and Sun, could get a lot of publicity having a VB.NET versus
>Java contest (employees or contractors of MS and SUN would be excluded).
> The top 5 or 10 winners on each side could be brought to Comdex or some
>such event to display the apps, and then name a winner. Of course, with
>Sun's posse of lawyers, there are legal considerations when Java loses.

>

Devx is not really that neutral. Their support of Java is nothing more than
token. Again, that would only prove that one side has better programmers.
Not better tools.

[wjung]

Sorry for weak english!!.

>>>Try doing MVC.
>>What is MVC? Microsoft Visual C? Define what *application* you would
suggest
>>cannot be done in VB, but can be in Java.
>
>Look it up. If you've really don't alot of OO you'd know. Others in VB.Tech
>do know.
>
MVC (Model-View-Controller) is the OOP Concept, not Java unique functionality.
So every OOP language can implement it.
And also Java doesn't implement MVC automatically for programmer. It just
recommend programmer to do it.