text:
Comparison of C Sharp and Java

This article compares two programming languages: C# with Java. While the focus of this article is mainly the languages and their features, such a comparison will necessarily also consider some features of platforms and libraries. For a more detailed comparison of the platforms, see Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms.

C# and Java are similar languages that are typed statically, strongly, and manifestly. Both are object-oriented, and designed with semi-interpretation or runtime just-in-time compilation, and both are curly brace languages, like C and C++.

Unified type system
Both languages are statically typed with class-based object orientation. In Java the primitive types are special in that they are not object-oriented and they could not have been defined using the language itself. They also do not share a common ancestor with reference types. The Java reference types all derive from a common root type. C# has a unified type system in which all types (besides unsafe pointers ) ultimately derive from a common root type. Consequently, all types implement the methods of this root type, and extension methods defined for the object type apply to all types, even primitive int literals and delegates. This allows C#, unlike Java, to support objects with encapsulation that are not reference types.

In Java, compound types are synonymous with reference types; methods cannot be defined for a type unless it is also a class reference type. In C# the concepts of encapsulation and methods have been decoupled from the reference requirement so that a type can support methods and encapsulation without being a reference type. Only reference types support virtual methods and specialization, however.

Both languages support many built-in types that are copied and passed by value rather than by reference. Java calls these types primitive types, while they are called simple types in C#. The primitive/simple types typically have native support from the underlying processor architecture.

The C# simple types implement several interfaces and consequently offer many methods directly on instances of the types, even on the literals. The C# type names are also merely aliases for Common Language Runtime (CLR) types. The C# System.Int64 type is exactly the same type as the long type; the only difference is that the former is the canonical .NET name, while the latter is a C# alias for it.

Java does not offer methods directly on primitive types. Instead, methods that operate on primitive values are offered through companion primitive wrapper classes. A fixed set of such wrapper classes exist, each of which wraps one of the fixed set of primitive types. As an example, the Java Long type is a reference type that wraps the primitive long type. They are not the same type, however.

Signed integers
Both Java and C# support signed integers with bit widths of 8, 16, 32 and 64 bits. They use the same name/aliases for the types, except for the 8-bit integer that is called a byte in Java and a sbyte (signed byte) in C#.

Unsigned integers
C# supports unsigned in addition to the signed integer types. The unsigned types are byte, ushort, uint and ulong for 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit widths, respectively. Unsigned arithmetic operating on the types are supported as well. For example, adding two unsigned integers (uints) still yields a uint as a result; not a long or signed integer.

Java does not feature unsigned integer types. In particular, Java lacks a primitive type for an unsigned byte. Instead, Java's byte type is sign extended, which is a common source of bugs and confusion.

Unsigned integers were left out of Java deliberately because James Gosling believed that programmers would not understand how unsigned arithmetic works."In programming language design, one of the standard problems is that the language grows so complex that nobody can understand it. One of the little experiments I tried was asking people about the rules for unsigned arithmetic in C. It turns out nobody understands how unsigned arithmetic in C works. There are a few obvious things that people understand, but many people don't understand it."

Java versions 8 and 9 added some limited built-in unsigned integer operations, but they are only exposed as static methods on the primitive wrapper classes; they operate on signed primitive integer types, treating them as if they were unsigned.

High-precision decimal numbers
C# has a type and literal notation for high-precision (28 decimal digits) decimal arithmetic that is appropriate for financial and monetary calculations. Contrary to the float and double data types, decimal fractional numbers such as 0.1 can be represented exactly in the decimal representation. In the float and double representations, such numbers often have non-terminating binary expansions, making those representations more prone to round-off errors.

While Java lacks such a built-in type, the Java library does feature an arbitrary precision decimal type. This is not considered a language type and it does not support the usual arithmetic operators; rather it is a reference type that must be manipulated using the type methods. See more about arbitrary-size/precision numbers below.

Advanced numeric types
Both languages offer library-defined arbitrary-precision arithmetic types for arbitrary-size integers and decimal point calculations.

Only Java has a data type for arbitrary precision decimal point calculations. Only C# has a type for working with complex numbers.

In both languages, the number of operations that can be performed on the advanced numeric types is limited compared to the built-in IEEE 754 floating point types. For instance, none of the arbitrary-size types support square root or logarithms.

C# allows library-defined types to be integrated with existing types and operators by using custom implicit/explicit conversions and operator overloading. See example in section Integration of library-defined types

Characters
Both languages feature a native char (character) datatype as a simple type. Although the char type can be used with bit-wise operators, this is performed by promoting the char value to an integer value before the operation. Thus, the result of a bitwise operation is a numeric type, not a character, in both languages.

Built-in compound data types
Both languages treat strings as (immutable) objects of reference type. In both languages, the type contains several methods to manipulate strings, parse, format, etc. In both languages regular expressions are considered an external feature and are implemented in separate classes.

Both languages' libraries define classes for working with dates, times, time zones, and calendars in different cultures. Java provides java.util.Date, a mutable reference type with millisecond precision, and (since Java 8) the java.time package (including classes such as LocalDate, LocalTime, and LocalDateTime for date-only, time-only, and date-and-time values), a set of immutable reference types with nanosecond precision. In contrast, the C# System.DateTime is an immutable struct value type for date-and-time information with 100-nanosecond precision; the .NET 6 API also added System.DateOnly and System.TimeOnly, similar structures for date-only or time-only operations. C# additionally defines a System.TimeSpan type for working with time periods; Java 8 provides the java.time.Duration class for the same purpose. Both languages support date and time arithmetic according to different cultures and time zones.

User-defined value type (struct)
C# allows the programmer to create user-defined value types, using the struct keyword. Unlike classes and like the standard primitives, such value types are passed and assigned by value rather than by reference. They can also be part of an object (either as a field or boxed), or stored in an array without the memory indirection that normally exists for class types.

Because value types have no notion of a null value and can be used in arrays without initialization, they always come with an implicit default constructor that essentially fills the struct memory space with zeroes. The programmer can only define additional constructors with one or more arguments. Value types do not have virtual method tables, and because of that (and the fixed memory footprint), they are implicitly sealed. However, value types can (and frequently do) implement interfaces. For example, the built-in integer types implement several interfaces.

Apart from the built-in primitive types, Java does not include the concept of value types.

Enumerations
Both languages define enumerations, but they are implemented in fundamentally different ways. As such, enumerations are one area where tools designed to automatically translate code between the two languages (such as Java to C# converters) fail.

C# has implemented enumerations in a manner similar to C, that is as wrappers around the bit-flags implemented in primitive integral types (int, byte, short, etc.). This has performance benefits and improves interaction with C/C++ compiled code, but provides fewer features and can lead to bugs if low-level value types are directly cast to an enumeration type, as is allowed in the C# language. Therefore, it is seen as syntactic sugar. In contrast, Java implements enumerations as full featured collection of instances, requiring more memory and not aiding interaction with C/C++ code, but providing additional features in reflection and intrinsic behavior. The implementation in each language is described in the table below.

In both C# and Java, programmers can use enumerations in a switch statement without conversion to a string or primitive integer type. However, C# disallows implicit fall-through unless the case statement does not contain any code, as it is a common cause of hard-to-find bugs. Fall-through must be explicitly declared using a goto statement.

Delegates, method references
C# implements object-oriented method pointers in the form of delegates. A delegate is a special type that can capture a reference to a method. This reference can then be stored in a delegate-type variable or passed to a method through a delegate parameter for later invocation. C# delegates support covariance and contravariance, and can hold a reference to any signature-compatible static method, instance method, anonymous method or lambda expression.

Delegates should not be confused with closures and inline functions. The concepts are related because a reference to a closure/inline function must be captured in a delegate reference to be useful at all. But a delegate does not always reference an inline function; it can also reference existing static or instance methods. Delegates form the basis of C# events, but should not be confused with those either.

Delegates were deliberately left out of Java because they were considered unnecessary and detrimental to the language, and because of potential performance issues. Instead, alternative mechanisms are used. The wrapper pattern, which resembles the delegates of C# in that it allows the client to access one or more client-defined methods through a known interface, is one such mechanism. Another is the use of adapter objects using inner classes, which the designers of Java argued are a better solution than bound method references.

See also example C# delegates and equivalent Java constructs.

Lifted (nullable) types
C# allows value/primitive/simple types to be "lifted" to allow the special null value in addition to the type's native values. A type is lifted by adding a ? suffix to the type name; this is equivalent to using the Nullable generic type, where T is the type to be lifted. Conversions are implicitly defined to convert between values of the base and the lifted type. The lifted type can be compared against null or it can be tested for HasValue. Also, lifted operators are implicitly and automatically defined based on their non-lifted base, where – with the exception of some boolean operators – a null argument will propagate to the result.

Java does not support type lifting as a concept, but all of the built-in primitive types have corresponding wrapper types, which do support the null value by virtue of being reference types (classes).

According to the Java spec, any attempt to dereference the null reference must result in an exception being thrown at run-time, specifically a NullPointerException. (It would not make sense to dereference it otherwise, because, by definition, it points to no object in memory.) This also applies when attempting to unbox a variable of a wrapper type, which evaluates to null: the program will throw an exception, because there is no object to be unboxed – and thus no boxed value to take part in the subsequent computation.

The following example illustrates the different behavior. In C#, the lifted*operator propagates the null value of the operand; in Java, unboxing the null reference throws an exception.

Not all C# lifted operators have been defined to propagate null unconditionally, if one of the operands is null. Specifically, the boolean operators have been lifted to support ternary logic thus keeping impedance with SQL.

The Java boolean operators do not support ternary logic, nor is it implemented in the base class library.

Late-bound (dynamic) type
C# features a late bound dynamic type that supports no-reflection dynamic invocation, interoperability with dynamic languages, and ad-hoc binding to (for example) document object models. The dynamic type resolves member access dynamically at runtime as opposed to statically/virtual at compile time. The member lookup mechanism is extensible with traditional reflection as a fall-back mechanism.

There are several use cases for the dynamic type in C#:
 * Less verbose use of reflection: By casting an instance to the dynamic type, members such as properties, methods, events etc. can be directly invoked on the instance without using the reflection API directly.
 * Interoperability with dynamic languages: The dynamic type comes with a hub-and-spoke support for implementing dynamically typed objects and common runtime infrastructure for efficient member lookup.
 * Creating dynamic abstractions on the fly: For instance, a dynamic object could provide simpler access to document object models such as XML or XHTML documents.

Java does not support a late-bound type. The use cases for C# dynamic type have different corresponding constructs in Java:
 * For dynamic late-bound by-name invocation of preexisting types, reflection should be used.
 * For interoperability with dynamic languages, some form of interoperability API specific to that language must be used. The Java virtual machine platform does have multiple dynamic languages implemented on it, but there is no common standard for how to pass objects between languages. Usually this involves some form of reflection or reflection-like API. As an example of how to use JavaFX objects from Java.
 * For creating and interacting with objects entirely at runtime, e.g., interaction with a document object model abstraction, a specific abstraction API must be used.

See also example.

Pointers
Java precludes pointers and pointer-arithmetic within the Java runtime environment. The Java language designers reasoned that pointers are one of the main features that enable programmers to put bugs in their code and chose not to support them. Java does not allow for directly passing and receiving objects/structures to/from the underlying operating system and thus does not need to model objects/structures to such a specific memory layout, layouts that frequently would involve pointers. Java's communication with the underlying operating system is instead based upon Java Native Interface (JNI) where communication with/adaptation to an underlying operating system is handled through an external glue layer.

While C# does allow use of pointers and corresponding pointer arithmetic, the C# language designers had the same concerns that pointers could potentially be used to bypass the strict rules for object access. Thus, C# by default also precludes pointers. However, because pointers are needed when calling many native functions, pointers are allowed in an explicit unsafe mode. Code blocks or methods that use the pointers must be marked with the unsafe keyword to be able to use pointers, and the compiler requires the /unsafe switch to allow compiling such code. Assemblies that are compiled using the /unsafe switch are marked as such and may only execute if explicitly trusted. This allows using pointers and pointer arithmetic to directly pass and receive objects to/from the operating system or other native APIs using the native memory layout for those objects while also isolating such potentially unsafe code in specifically trusted assemblies.

Reference types
In both languages references are a central concept. All instances of classes are by reference.

While not directly evident in the language syntax per se, both languages support the concept of weak references. An instance that is only referenced by weak references is eligible for garbage collection just as if there were no references at all. In both languages this feature is exposed through the associated libraries, even though it is really a core runtime feature.

Along with weak references, Java has soft references. They are much like weak references, but the Java virtual machine (JVM) will not deallocate softly-referenced objects until the memory is needed.

Arrays and collections
Arrays and collections are concepts featured by both languages.

The syntax used to declare and access arrays is identical, except that C# has added syntax for declaring and manipulating multidimensional arrays.

Multidimensional arrays can in some cases increase performance because of increased locality (as there is one pointer dereference instead of one for every dimension of the array, as it is the case for jagged arrays). However, since all array element access in a multidimensional array requires multiplication/shift between the two or more dimensions, this is an advantage only in very random access scenarios.

Another difference is that the entire multidimensional array can be allocated with a single application of operator new, while jagged arrays require loops and allocations for every dimension. However, Java provides a syntactic construct for allocating a jagged array with regular lengths; the loops and multiple allocations are then performed by the virtual machine and need not be explicit at the source level.

Both languages feature an extensive set of collection types that includes various ordered and unordered types of lists, maps/dictionaries, sets, etc.

Tuples
C# provides two different methods for creating tuple types (also known as product types). The first is via the System.Tuple classes, which are immutable reference types provided by the framework API (starting with .NET Framework 4.0) for creating generic tuple types. This first method has since been effectively superseded by the second, the System.ValueTuple structs, which are mutable value types provided by the framework API (starting with .NET Framework 4.7).

While the two methods seem superficially similar, they have multiple notable differences. The ValueTuple types are value types, so they have a more compact memory footprint; also, the ValueTuple types expose their contents as mutable fields, compared to the immutable properties of the Tuple classes. Finally, since C# version 7.0, the language has native syntactical support for the construction, deconstruction, and manipulation of tuples as ValueTuple instances; this also provides for the arbitrary renaming of the tuples' constituent fields (as opposed to Tuple, where the fields are always named Item1, Item2, etc.).

Java does not provide tuple types as part of its language or standard API; numerous third-party libraries exist which can provide tuple types, but they all are necessarily similar to the C# System.Tuple classes. In comparison to C# ValueTuple types and their associated syntax, they are more unwieldy to use (requiring the explicit use of constructors or static factory methods for creating them, requiring individual member access to deconstruct them, and having fixed names for their elements).

Boxing and unboxing
Both languages allow automatic boxing and unboxing, i.e. they allow for implicit casting between any primitive types and the corresponding reference types.

In C#, the primitive types are subtypes of the Object type. In Java this is not true; any given primitive type and the corresponding wrapper type have no specific relationship with each other, except for autoboxing and unboxing, which act as syntactic sugar for interchanging between them. This was done intentionally, to maintain backward compatibility with prior versions of Java, in which no automatic casting was allowed, and the programmer worked with two separate sets of types: the primitive types, and the wrapper (reference) type hierarchy.

This difference has the following consequences. First of all, in C#, primitive types can define methods, such as an override of Object's ToString method. In Java, this task is accomplished by the primitive wrapper classes.

Secondly, in Java an extra cast is needed whenever one tries to directly dereference a primitive value, as it will not be boxed automatically. The expression will convert an integer literal to string in Java while  performs the same operation in C#. This is because the latter one is an instance call on the primitive value 42, while the former one is an instance call on an object of type.

Finally, another difference is that Java makes heavy use of boxed types in generics (see below).

Syntax
Both languages are considered "curly brace" languages in the C/C++ family. Overall the syntaxes of the languages are very similar. The syntax at the statement and expression level is almost identical with obvious inspiration from the C/C++ tradition. At type definition level (classes and interfaces) some minor differences exist. Java is explicit about extending classes and implementing interfaces, while C# infers this from the kind of types a new class/interface derives from.

C# supports more features than Java, which to some extent is also evident in the syntax that specifies more keywords and more grammar rules than Java.

Keywords and backward compatibility
As the languages evolved, the language designers for both languages have faced situations where they wanted to extend the languages with new keywords or syntax. New keywords in particular may break existing code at source level, i.e. older code may no longer compile, if presented to a compiler for a later version of the language. Language designers are keen to avoid such regressions. The designers of the two languages have been following different paths when addressing this problem.

Java language designers have avoided new keywords as much as possible, preferring instead to introduce new syntactic constructs that were not legal before or to reuse existing keywords in new contexts. This way they didn't jeopardize backward compatibility. An example of the former can be found in how the for loop was extended to accept iterable types. An example of the latter can be found in how the extends and (especially) the super keywords were reused for specifying type bounds when generics were introduced in Java 1.5. At one time (Java 1.4) a new keyword assert was introduced that was not reserved as a keyword before. This had the potential to render formerly valid code invalid, if for instance the code used assert as an identifier. The designers chose to address this problem with a four-step solution: 1) Introducing a compiler switch that indicates if Java 1.4 or later should be used, 2) Only marking assert as a keyword when compiling as Java 1.4 and later, 3) Defaulting to 1.3 to avoid rendering prior (non 1.4 aware code) invalid and 4) Issue warnings, if the keyword is used in Java 1.3 mode, to allow changes in the code.

C# language designers have introduced several new keywords since the first version. However, instead of defining these keywords as global keywords, they define them as context sensitive keywords. This means that even when they introduced (among others) the partial and yield keywords in C# 2.0, the use of those words as identifiers is still valid as there is no clash possible between the use as keyword and the use as identifier, given the context. Thus, the present C# syntax is fully backward compatible with source code written for any prior version without specifying the language version to be used.

Object-oriented programming
Both C# and Java are designed from the ground up as object-oriented languages using dynamic dispatch, with syntax similar to C++ (C++ in turn derives from C). Neither language is a superset of C or C++, however.

Partial class
C# allows a class definition to be split across several source files using a feature called partial classes. Each part must be marked with the keyword partial. All the parts must be presented to the compiler as part of a single compilation. Parts can reference members from other parts. Parts can implement interfaces and one part can define a base class. The feature is useful in code generation scenarios (such as user interface (UI) design), where a code generator can supply one part and the developer another part to be compiled together. The developer can thus edit their part without the risk of a code generator overwriting that code at some later time. Unlike the class extension mechanism, a partial class allows circular dependencies among its parts as they are guaranteed to be resolved at compile time. Java has no corresponding concept.

Inner and local classes
Both languages allow inner classes, where a class is defined lexically inside another class. However, in each language these inner classes have rather different semantics.

In Java, unless the inner class is declared static, a reference to an instance of an inner class carries a reference to the outer class with it. As a result, code in the inner class has access to both the static and non-static members of the outer class. To create an instance of a non-static inner class, the instance of the embracing outer class must be named. This is done via a new new-operator introduced in JDK 1.3: outerClassInstance.new Outer.InnerClass. This can be done in any class that has a reference to an instance of the outer class.

In C#, an inner class is conceptually the same as a normal class. In a sense, the outer class only acts as a namespace. Thus, code in the inner class cannot access non-static members of the outer class unless it does so through an explicit reference to an instance of the outer class. Programmers can declare the inner class private to allow only the outer class to have any access to it.

Java provides another feature called local classes or anonymous classes, which can be defined within a method body. These are generally used to implement an interface with only one or two methods, which are typically event handlers. However, they can also be used to override virtual methods of a superclass. The methods in those local classes have access to the outer method's local variables declared final. C# satisfies the use-cases for these by providing anonymous delegates; see event handling for more about this.

C# also provides a feature called anonymous types/classes, but it is rather different from Java's concept with the same name. It allows the programmer to instantiate a class by providing only a set of names for the properties the class should have, and an expression to initialize each. The types of the properties are inferred from the types of those expressions. These implicitly-declared classes are derived directly from object.

Event
C# multicast-delegates are used with events. Events provide support for event-driven programming and are an implementation of the observer pattern. To support this there is a specific syntax to define events in classes, and operators to register, unregister or combine event handlers.

See here for information about how events are implemented in Java.

Operator overloading and conversions
Operator overloading and user-defined casts are separate features that both aim to allow new types to become first-class citizens in the type system. By using these features in C#, types such as Complex and decimal have been integrated so that the usual operators like addition and multiplication work with the new types. Unlike C++, C# does restrict the use of operator overloading, prohibiting it for the operators new,, , &&, =, and any variations of compound statements like +=. But compound operators will call overloaded simple operators, like calling - and =.

Java does not include operator overloading, nor custom conversions to prevent abuse of the feature and to keep the language simple.

Indexer
C# also includes indexers that can be considered a special case of operator overloading (like the C++ operator[]), or parameterized get/set properties. An indexer is a property named this[] that uses one or more parameters (indexes); the indices can be objects of any type:

Java does not include indexers. The common Java pattern involves writing explicit getters and setters where a C# programmer would use an indexer.

Object initialization
In both C# and Java, an object's fields can be initialized either by variable initializers (expressions that can be assigned to variables where they are defined) or by constructors (special subroutines that are executed when an object is being created). In addition, Java contains instance initializers, which are anonymous blocks of code with no arguments that are run after the explicit (or implicit) call to a superclass's constructor but before the constructor is executed.

C# initializes object fields in the following order when creating an object:
 * 1) Derived static fields
 * 2) Derived static constructor
 * 3) Derived instance fields
 * 4) Base static fields
 * 5) Base static constructor
 * 6) Base instance fields
 * 7) Base instance constructor
 * 8) Derived instance constructor

Some of the above fields may not be applicable (e.g. if an object does not have static fields). Derived fields are those that are defined in the object's direct class, while base field is a term for the fields that are defined in one of the object's superclasses. Note that an object representation in memory contains all fields defined in its class or any of its superclasses, even, if some fields in superclasses are defined as private.

It is guaranteed that any field initializers take effect before any constructors are called, since both the instance constructor of the object's class and its superclasses are called after field initializers are called. There is, however, a potential trap in object initialization when a virtual method is called from a base constructor. The overridden method in a subclass may reference a field that is defined in the subclass, but this field may not have been initialized because the constructor of the subclass that contains field initialization is called after the constructor of its base class.

In Java, the order of initialization is as follows:
 * 1) Invocation of another constructor (either of the object's class or of the object's superclass)
 * 2) Instance variable initializers and instance initializers (in the order they appear in the source code)
 * 3) The constructor body

Like in C#, a new object is created by calling a specific constructor. Within a constructor, the first statement may be an invocation of another constructor. If this is omitted, the call to the argumentless constructor of the superclass is added implicitly by the compiler. Otherwise, either another overloaded constructor of the object's class can be called explicitly, or a superclass constructor can be called. In the former case, the called constructor will again call another constructor (either of the object's class or its subclass) and the chain sooner or later ends up at the call to one of the constructors of the superclass.

After another constructor is called (that causes direct invocation of the superclass constructor, and so forth, down to the Object class), instance variables defined in the object's class are initialized. Even if there are no variable initializers explicitly defined for some variables, these variables are initialized to default values. Note that instance variables defined in superclasses are already initialized by this point, because they were initialized by a superclass constructor when it was called (either by the constructor's code or by variable initializers performed before the constructor's code or implicitly to default values). In Java, variable initializers are executed according to their textual order in the source file.

Finally, the constructor body is executed. This ensures proper order of initialization, i.e. the fields of a base class finish initialization before initialization of the fields of an object class begins.

There are two main potential traps in Java's object initialization. First, variable initializers are expressions that can contain method calls. Since methods can reference any variable defined in the class, the method called in a variable initializer can reference a variable that is defined below the variable being initialized. Since initialization order corresponds to textual order of variable definitions, such a variable would not be initialized to the value prescribed by its initializer and would contain the default value. Another potential trap is when a method that is overridden in the derived class is called in the base class constructor, which can lead to behavior the programmer would not expect when an object of the derived class is created. According to the initialization order, the body of the base class constructor is executed before variable initializers are evaluated and before the body of the derived class constructor is executed. The overridden method called from the base class constructor can, however, reference variables defined in the derived class, but these are not yet initialized to the values specified by their initializers or set in the derived class constructor. The latter issue applies to C# as well, but in a less critical form since in C# methods are not overridable by default.

Resource disposal
Both languages mainly use garbage collection as a means of reclaiming memory resources, rather than explicit deallocation of memory. In both cases, if an object holds resources of different kinds other than memory, such as file handles, graphical resources, etc., then it must be notified explicitly when the application no longer uses it. Both C# and Java offer interfaces for such deterministic disposal and both C# and Java (since Java 7) feature automatic resource management statements that will automatically invoke the disposal/close methods on those interfaces.

Extension methods and default methods
Using a special this designator on the first parameter of a method, C# allows the method to act as if it were a member method of the type of the first parameter. This extension of the foreign class is purely syntactical. The extension method must be declared static and defined within a purely static class. The method must obey any member access restriction like any other method external to the class; thus static methods cannot break object encapsulation. The "extension" is only active within scopes where the namespace of the static host class has been imported.

Since Java 8, Java has a similar feature called default methods, which are methods with a body declared on interfaces. As opposed to C# extension methods, Java default methods are instance methods on the interface that declare them. Definition of default methods in classes that implement the interface is optional: If the class does not define the method, the default definition is used instead.

Both the C# extension methods and the Java default methods allow a class to override the default implementation of the extension/default method, respectively. In both languages this override is achieved by defining a method on the class that should use an alternate implementation of the method.

C# scope rules defines that if a matching method is found on a class, it takes precedence over a matching extension method. In Java any class declared to implement an interface with default method is assumed to have the default methods implementations, unless the class implements the method itself.

Partial methods
Related to partial classes C# allows partial methods to be specified within partial classes. A partial method is an intentional declaration of a method with several restrictions on the signature. The restrictions ensure that if a definition is not provided by any class part, then the method and every call to it can be safely erased. This feature allows code to provide a large number of interception points (like the template method GoF design pattern) without paying any runtime overhead if these extension points are not being used by another class part at compile time. Java has no corresponding concept.

Virtual methods
Methods in C# are non-virtual by default, and must be declared virtual explicitly, if desired. In Java, all non-static non-private methods are virtual. Virtuality guarantees that the most recent override for the method will always be called, but incurs a certain runtime cost on invocation as these invocations cannot be normally inlined, and require an indirect call via the virtual method table. However, some JVM implementations, including the Oracle reference implementation, implement inlining of the most commonly called virtual methods.

Java methods are virtual by default (although they can be sealed by using the final modifier to disallow overriding). There is no way to let derived classes define a new, unrelated method with the same name.

This means that by default in Java, and only when explicitly enabled in C#, new methods may be defined in a derived class with the same name and signature as those in its base class. When the method is called on a superclass reference of such an object, the "deepest" overridden implementation of the base class' method will be called according to the specific subclass of the object being referenced.

In some cases, when a subclass introduces a method with the same name and signature as a method already present in the base class, problems can occur. In Java, this will mean that the method in the derived class will implicitly override the method in the base class, even though that may not be the intent of the designers of either class.

To mitigate this, C# requires that if a method is intended to override an inherited method, the override keyword must be specified. Otherwise, the method will "hide" the inherited method. If the keyword is absent, compiler warning to this effect is issued, which can be silenced by specifying the new keyword. This avoids the problem that can arise from a base class being extended with a non-private method (i.e. an inherited part of the namespace) whose signature is already in use by a derived class. Java has a similar compiler check in the form of the @Override method annotation, but it is not compulsory, and in its absence, most compilers will not provide comment (but the method will be overridden).

Constant/immutable parameters
In Java, it is possible to prevent reassignment of a local variable or method parameter by using the keyword. Applying this keyword to a primitive type variable causes the variable to become immutable. However, applying to a reference type variable only prevents that another object is assigned to it. It will not prevent the data contained by the object from being mutated. As of C#7, it is possible to prevent reassignment of a method parameter by using the in keyword, however this keyword cannot be used on local variables. As with Java, applying in to a parameter only prevents the parameter from being reassigned to a different value. It is still possible to mutate the data contained by the object.

Both languages do not support essential feature of const-correctness that exists in C/C++, which makes a method constant.

Java defines the word "constant" arbitrarily as a field. As a convention, these variable names are capital-only with words separated with an underscore but the Java language doesn't insist on this. A parameter that is only is not considered as a constant, although it may be so in the case of a primitive data type or an immutable class, like a.

Generator methods
Any C# method declared as returning IEnumerable, IEnumerator or the generic versions of these interfaces can be implemented using yield syntax. This is a form of limited, compiler-generated continuations and can drastically reduce the code needed to traverse or generate sequences, although that code is just generated by the compiler instead. The feature can also be used to implement infinite sequences, e.g., the sequence of Fibonacci numbers.

Java does not have an equivalent feature. Instead, generators are typically defined by providing a specialized implementation of a well-known collection or iterable interface, which will compute each element on demand. For such a generator to be used in a for each statement, it must implement interface.

See also example Fibonacci sequence below.

Explicit interface implementation
C# also has explicit interface implementation that allows a class to specifically implement methods of an interface, separate to its own class methods, or to provide different implementations for two methods with the same name and signature inherited from two base interfaces.

In either language, if a method (or property in C#) is specified with the same name and signature in multiple interfaces, the members will clash when a class is designed that implements those interfaces. An implementation will by default implement a common method for all of the interfaces. If separate implementations are needed (because the methods serve separate purposes, or because return values differ between the interfaces) C#'s explicit interface implementation will solve the problem, though allowing different results for the same method, depending on the current cast of the object. In Java there is no way to solve this problem other than refactoring one or more of the interfaces to avoid name clashes.

Reference (in/out) parameters
The arguments of primitive types (e.g. int, double) to a method are passed by value in Java whereas objects are passed by reference. This means that a method operates on copies of the primitives passed to it instead of on the actual variables. On the contrary, the actual objects in some cases can be changed. In the following example, object String is not changed. Object of class 'a' is changed.

In C#, it is possible to enforce a reference with the ref keyword, similar to C++ and in a sense to C. This feature of C# is particularly useful when one wants to create a method that returns more than one object. In Java trying to return multiple values from a method is unsupported unless a wrapper is used, in this case named "Ref".

Checked exceptions
Java supports checked exceptions (along with unchecked exceptions). C# only supports unchecked exceptions. Checked exceptions force the programmer to either declare the exception thrown in a method, or to catch the thrown exception using a clause.

Checked exceptions can encourage good programming practice, ensuring that all errors are dealt with. However Anders Hejlsberg, chief C# language architect, argues that they were to some extent an experiment in Java and that they have not been shown to be worthwhile except in small example programs.

One criticism is that checked exceptions encourage programmers to use an empty catch block, which silently swallows exceptions, rather than letting the exceptions propagate to a higher-level exception-handling routine. In some cases, however, exception chaining can be applied instead, by re-throwing the exception in a wrapper exception. For example, if an object is changed to access a database instead of a file, an could be caught and re-thrown as an, since the caller may not need to know the inner workings of the object.

However, not all programmers agree with this stance. James Gosling and others maintain that checked exceptions are useful, and misusing them has caused the problems. Silently catching exceptions is possible, yes, but it must be stated explicitly what to do with the exception, versus unchecked exceptions that allow doing nothing by default. It can be ignored, but code must be written explicitly to ignore it.

Try-catch-finally
There are also differences between the two languages in treating the try-finally statement. The finally block is always executed, even if the try block contains control-passing statements like throw or return. In Java, this may result in unexpected behavior, if the try block is left by a return statement with some value, and then the finally block that is executed afterward is also left by a return statement with a different value. C# resolves this problem by prohibiting any control-passing statements like return or break in the finally block.

A common reason for using try-finally blocks is to guard resource managing code, thus guaranteeing the release of precious resources in the finally block. C# features the using statement as a syntactic shorthand for this common scenario, in which the Dispose method of the object of the using is always called.

A rather subtle difference is the moment a stack trace is created when an exception is being thrown. In Java, the stack trace is created in the moment the exception is created.

The exception in the statement above will always contain the constructor's stack-trace – no matter how often foo is called. In C# on the other hand, the stack-trace is created the moment "throw" is executed.

In the code above, the exception will contain the stack-trace of the first throw-line. When catching an exception, there are two options in case the exception should be rethrown: throw will just rethrow the original exception with the original stack, while throw e would have created a new stack trace.

Finally blocks
Java allows flow of control to leave the finally block of a try statement, regardless of the way it was entered. This can cause another control flow statement (such as return) to be terminated mid-execution. For example:

In the above code, the return statement within the try block causes control to leave it, and thus finally block is executed before the actual return happens. However, the finally block itself also performs a return. Thus, the original return that caused it to be entered is not executed, and the above method returns 1 rather than 0. Informally speaking, it tries to return 0 but finally returns 1.

C# does not allow any statements that allow control flow to leave the finally block prematurely, except for throw. In particular, return is not allowed at all, goto is not allowed if the target label is outside the finally block, and continue and break are not allowed if the nearest enclosing loop is outside the finally block.

Generics
In the field of generics the two languages show a superficial syntactical similarity, but they have deep underlying differences.

Type erasure versus reified generics
Generics in Java are a language-only construction; they are implemented only in the compiler. The generated classfiles include generic signatures only in form of metadata (allowing the compiler to compile new classes against them). The runtime has no knowledge of the generic type system; generics are not part of the Java virtual machine (JVM). Instead, generics classes and methods are transformed during compiling via a process termed type erasure. During this, the compiler replaces all generic types with their raw version and inserts casts/checks appropriately in client code where the type and its methods are used. The resulting byte code will contain no references to any generic types or parameters (See also Generics in Java).

The Java language specification intentionally prohibits certain uses of generics; this is necessary to allow for implementing generics through type erasure, and to allow for migration compatibility. Research into adding reified generics to the Java platform is ongoing, as part of Project Valhalla.

C# builds on support for generics from the virtual execution system, i.e., it is not just a language feature. The language is merely a front-end for cross-language generics support in the CLR. During compiling generics are verified for correctness, but code generation to implement the generics are deferred to class-load time. Client code (code invoking generic methods/properties) are fully compiled and can safely assume generics to be type-safe. This is called reification. At runtime, when a unique set of type parameters for a generic class/method/delegate is encountered for the first time, the class loader/verifier will synthesize a concrete class descriptor and generate method implementations. During the generation of method implementations all reference types will be considered one type, as reference types can safely share the same implementations. This is merely for the purpose of implementing code. Different sets of reference types will still have unique type descriptors; their method tables will merely point to the same code.

The following list illustrates some differences between Java and C# when managing generics. It is not exhaustive:

C# allows generics directly for primitive types. Java, instead, allows the use of boxed types as type parameters (e.g., instead of ). This comes at a cost since all such values need to be boxed/unboxed when used, and they all need to be heap-allocated. However, a generic type can be specialized with an array type of a primitive type in Java, for example is allowed. Several third-party libraries implemented the basic collections in Java with backing primitive arrays to preserve the runtime and memory optimization that primitive types provide.

Migration compatibility
Java's type erasure design was motivated by a design requirement to achieve migration compatibility – not to be confused with backward compatibility. In particular, the original requirement was "… there should be a clean, demonstrable migration path for the Collections APIs that were introduced in the Java 2 platform". This was designed so that any new generic collections should be passable to methods that expected one of the pre-existing collection classes.

C# generics were introduced into the language while preserving full backward compatibility, but did not preserve full migration compatibility: Old code (pre C# 2.0) runs unchanged on the new generics-aware runtime without recompilation. As for migration compatibility, new generic collection classes and interfaces were developed that supplemented the non-generic .NET 1.x collections rather than replacing them. In addition to generic collection interfaces, the new generic collection classes implement the non-generic collection interfaces where possible. This prevents the use of new generic collections with pre-existing (non-generic aware) methods, if those methods are coded to use the collection classes.

Covariance and contravariance
Covariance and contravariance is supported by both languages. Java has use-site variance that allows a single generic class to declare members using both co- and contravariance. C# has define-site variance for generic interfaces and delegates. Variance is unsupported directly on classes but is supported through their implementation of variant interfaces. C# also has use-site covariance support for methods and delegates.

Closures
A closure is an inline function that captures variables from its lexical scope.

C# supports closures as anonymous methods or lambda expressions with full-featured closure semantics.

In Java, anonymous inner classes will remain the preferred way to emulate closures until Java 8 has become the new standard. This is a more verbose construction. This approach also has some differences compared to real closures, notably more controlled access to variables from the enclosing scopes: only final members can be referenced. Java 8, however introduces lambdas that fully inherit the current scope and, in fact, do not introduce a new scope.

When a reference to a method can be passed around for later execution, a problem arises about what to do when the method has references to variables/parameters in its lexical scope. C# closures can access any variable/parameter from its lexical scope. In Java's anonymous inner classes, only references to final members of the lexical scope are allowed, thus requiring the developer to mark which variables to make available, and in what state (possibly requiring boxing).

Lambdas and expression trees
C# and Java feature a special type of in-line closures called lambdas. These are anonymous methods: they have a signature and a body, but no name. They are mainly used to specify local function-valued arguments in calls to other methods, a technique mainly associated with functional programming.

C#, unlike Java, allows the use of lambda functions as a way to define special data structures called expression trees. Whether they are seen as an executable function or as a data structure depends on compiler type inference and what type of variable or parameter they are assigned or cast to. Lambdas and expression trees play key roles in Language Integrated Query (LINQ).

Namespaces and file contents
In C#, namespaces are similar to those in C++. Unlike package names in Java, a namespace is not in any way tied to the location of the source file. While it is not strictly necessary for a Java source file location to mirror its package directory structure, it is the conventional organization.

Both languages allow importing of classes (e.g., import java.util.* in Java), allowing a class to be referenced using only its name. Sometimes classes with the same name exist in multiple namespaces or packages. Such classes can be referenced by using fully qualified names, or by importing only selected classes with different names. To do this, Java allows importing a single class (e.g., import java.util.List). C# allows importing classes under a new local name using the following syntax: using Console = System.Console. It also allows importing specializations of classes in the form of using IntList = System.Collections.Generic.List.

Both languages have a static import syntax that allows using the short name of some or all of the static methods/fields in a class (e.g., allowing foo(bar) where foo can be statically imported from another class). C# has a static class syntax (not to be confused with static inner classes in Java), which restricts a class to only contain static methods. C# 3.0 introduces extension methods to allow users to statically add a method to a type (e.g., allowing foo.bar where bar can be an imported extension method working on the type of foo).

The Sun Microsystems Java compiler requires that a source file name must match the only public class inside it, while C# allows multiple public classes in the same file, and puts no restrictions on the file name. C# 2.0 and later allows splitting a class definition into several files by using the partial keyword in the source code. In Java, a public class will always be in its own source file. In C#, source code files and logical units separation are not tightly related.

Conditional compilation
Unlike Java, C# implements conditional compilation using preprocessor directives. It also provides a Conditional attribute to define methods that are only called when a given compilation constant is defined. This way, assertions can be provided as a framework feature with the method Debug.Assert, which is only evaluated when the DEBUG constant is defined. Since version 1.4, Java provides a language feature for assertions, which are turned off at runtime by default but can be enabled using the -enableassertions or -ea switch when invoking the JVM.

Threading and asynchronous features
Both languages include thread synchronization mechanisms as part of their language syntax.

Task-based parallelism for C#
With .NET Framework 4.0, a new task-based programming model was introduced to replace the existing event-based asynchronous model. The API is based around the Task and Task classes. Tasks can be composed and chained.

By convention, every method that returns a Task should have its name postfixed with Async.

In C# 5 a set of language and compiler extensions was introduced to make it easier to work with the task model. These language extensions included the notion of async methods and the await statement that make the program flow appear synchronous.

From this syntactic sugar the C# compiler generates a state-machine that handles the necessary continuations without developers having to think about it.

Task-based parallelism for Java
Java supports threads since JDK 1.0. Java offers a high versatility for running threads, often called tasks. This is done by implementing a functional interface (a interface) defining a single void no-args method as demonstrated in the following example:

Similar to C#, Java has a higher level mechanism for working with threads. Executors can execute asynchronous tasks and also manage a group of subprocesses. All the threads of an ExecutorServices instance are handled in a pool. This ExecutorService instance will be reused under the hood for revenant tasks, so it's possible runs as many concurrent tasks as the programmer wants throughout the life-cycle of the application using a single executor service instance.

This is how the first thread-example looks using executors:

The ExecutorService instance also supports a Callable interface, another single method interface like Runnable but the signature of the contained method of Callable returns a value. In this way, the lambda expression must also return a value, like the below example of calling a website asynchronously as the C# example. Calling the method get blocks the current thread and waits until the callable completes before returning the value (in the example, a web page content):

The following example, a method and a class are used. This wrap it's just to be similar to the C# example since Java does not have keywords like async for the method signature.

Numeric applications
To adequately support applications in the field of mathematical and financial computation, several language features exist.

Java's strictfp keyword enables strict floating-point calculations for a region of code. Strict floating-point calculations require that even if a platform offers higher precision during calculations, intermediate results must be converted to single/double. This ensures that strict floating-point calculations return exactly the same result on all platforms. Without strict floating-point, a platform implementation is free to use higher precision for intermediate results during calculation. C# allows an implementation for a given hardware architecture to always use a higher precision for intermediate results if available, i.e. C# does not allow the programmer to optionally force intermediate results to use the potential lower precision of single/double.

Although Java's floating-point arithmetic is largely based on IEEE 754 (Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic), certain features are unsupported even when using the strictfp modifier, such as Exception Flags and Directed Roundings, abilities mandated by IEEE Standard 754 (see Criticism of Java, Floating point arithmetic).

C# provides a built-in decimal type, which has higher precision (but less range) than the Java/C# double. The decimal type is a 128-bit data type suitable for financial and monetary calculations. The decimal type can represent values ranging from 1.0 × 10−28 to approximately 7.9 × 1028 with 28–29 significant digits. The structure uses C# operator overloading so that decimals can be manipulated using operators such as +, -, * and /, like other primitive data types.

The and  types provided with Java allow arbitrary-precision representation of decimal numbers and integer numbers, respectively. Java standard library does not have classes to deal with complex numbers.

The, and types provided with C# allow representation and manipulation of arbitrary-precision integers and complex numbers, respectively. The structures use C# operator overloading so that instances can be manipulated using operators such as +, -, *, and /, like other primitive data types. C# standard library does not have classes to deal with arbitrary-precision floating point numbers (see software for arbitrary-precision arithmetic).

C# can help mathematical applications with the and  operators that allow the enabling or disabling of run-time checking for arithmetic overflow for a region of code.

Language integrated query (LINQ)
C#s Language Integrated Query (LINQ) is a set of features designed to work together to allow in-language querying abilities and is a distinguishing feature between C# and Java.

LINQ consists of these features:
 * Extension methods allow existing interfaces or classes to be extended with new methods. Implementations can be shared or an interface can have a dedicated implementation.
 * Lambdas allow for expression of criteria in a functional fashion.
 * Expression trees allow a specific implementation to capture a lambda as an abstract syntax tree rather than an executable block. This can be utilized by implementations to represent criteria in a different language, e.g. in the form of an SQL where clause as is the case with e.g. Linq, LINQ to SQL.
 * Anonymous types and type inference supports capturing and working with the result type of a query. A query may both join and project over query sources that may lead to a result type that cannot be named.
 * Query expressions to support a syntax familiar to SQL users.
 * Nullable (lifted) types to allow for a better match with query providers that support nullable types, like e.g. SQL.

Native interoperability
The Java Native Interface (JNI) feature allows Java programs to call non-Java code. However, JNI does require the code being called to follow several conventions and imposes restrictions on types and names used. This means that an extra adaption layer between legacy code and Java is often needed. This adaption code must be coded in a non-Java language, often C or C++. Java Native Access (JNA) allows easier calling of native code that only requires writing Java code, but comes at a performance cost.

In addition, third party libraries provide Java-Component Object Model (COM) bridging, e.g., JACOB (free), and J-Integra for COM (proprietary).

.NET Platform Invoke (P/Invoke) offers the same ability by allowing calls from C# to what Microsoft terms unmanaged code. Through metadata attributes the programmer can control exactly how the parameters and results are marshalled, thus avoiding the external glue code needed by the equivalent JNI in Java. P/Invoke allows almost complete access to procedural APIs (such as Win32 or POSIX), but limited access to C++ class libraries.

In addition, .NET Framework also provides a .NET-COM bridge, allowing access to COM components as, if they were first-class .NET objects.

C# also allows the programmer to disable the normal type-checking and other safety features of the CLR, which then enables the use of pointer variables. When using this feature, the programmer must mark the code using the unsafe keyword. JNI, P/Invoke, and "unsafe" code are equally risky features, exposing possible security holes and application instability. An advantage of unsafe, managed code over P/Invoke or JNI is that it allows the programmer to continue to work in the familiar C# environment to accomplish some tasks that otherwise would require calling out to unmanaged code. An assembly (program or library) using unsafe code must be compiled with a special switch and will be marked as such. This enables runtime environments to take special precautions before executing potentially harmful code.

Runtime environments
Java (the programming language) is designed to execute on the Java platform via the Java Runtime Environment (JRE). The Java platform includes the Java virtual machine (JVM) and a common set of libraries. The JRE was originally designed to support interpreted execution with final compiling as an option. Most JRE environments execute fully or at least partially compiled programs, possibly with adaptive optimization. The Java compiler produces Java bytecode. Upon execution the bytecode is loaded by the Java runtime and either interpreted directly or compiled to machine instructions and then executed.

C# is designed to execute on the Common Language Runtime (CLR). The CLR is designed to execute fully compiled code. The C# compiler produces Common Intermediate Language instructions. Upon execution the runtime loads this code and compiles to machine instructions on the target architecture.

Input/output
Example illustrating how to copy text one line at a time from one file to another, using both languages.

Integration of library-defined types
C# allows library-defined types to be integrated with existing types and operators by using custom implicit/explicit conversions and operator overloading as illustrated by the following example:

Interoperability with dynamic languages
This example illustrates how Java and C# can be used to create and invoke an instance of class that is implemented in another programming language. The "Deepthought" class is implemented using the Ruby programming language and represents a simple calculator that will multiply two input values (a and b) when the Calculate method is invoked. In addition to the conventional way, Java has GraalVM, a virtual machine capable to run any implemented programming language. {| style="width:100%; border:none;" class="wikitable" !width=50%|Java !width=50%|C#
 * valign=top|
 * valign=top|

Traditional way

 * valign=top|

Notes for the Java implementation: Notes for the C# implementation:
 * - valign=top
 * Ruby accessors names are generated from the attribute name with a = suffix. When assigning values, Java developers must use the Ruby accessor method name.
 * Dynamic objects from a foreign language are not first-class objects in that they must be manipulated through an API.
 * Objects returned from properties or methods of dynamic objects are themselves of dynamic type. When type inference (the var keyword) is used, the variables calc and answer are inferred dynamic/late-bound.
 * Dynamic, late-bounds objects are first-class citizens that can be manipulated using C# syntax even though they have been created by an external language.
 * new is a reserved word. The @ prefix allows keywords to be used as identifiers.

 * }

Fibonacci sequence
This example illustrates how the Fibonacci sequence can be implemented using the two languages. The C# version takes advantage of C# generator methods. The Java version takes the advantage of Stream interface and method references. Both the Java and the C# examples use K&R style for code formatting of classes, methods and statements.

{| style="width:100%; border:none;" class="wikitable" !Java !C#
 * width=50%|
 * width=50% valign=top|
 * width=50%|
 * width=50% valign=top|
 * - valign="top"
 * Notes for the Java version:
 * The Java 8 Stream interface is a sequence of elements supporting sequential and parallel aggregate operations.
 * The generate method returns an infinite sequential unordered stream where each element is generated by the provided Supplier.
 * The limit method returns a stream consisting of the elements of this stream, truncated to be no longer than maxSize in length.
 * The forEach method performs an action for each element of this stream, this action could be a lambda or a method reference.
 * The limit method returns a stream consisting of the elements of this stream, truncated to be no longer than maxSize in length.
 * The forEach method performs an action for each element of this stream, this action could be a lambda or a method reference.

Using a foreach
The same example above, but using a method returning an Iterable to maintain greater similarity with the C# example. Anything that implements the iterable interface can be iterated in a foreach.

The most common way to do the example above would be to use Streams, not Iterables. This could be returned from a method like the C# example, but it's unnecessary and could be used directly by just collecting the Stream.

Below is an example using Streams and the collecting the Stream calling toList in the foreach block.

In addition to the toList collector in the foreach block, It's important to highlight that there are more collectors for every type of collection. Also, custom collectors could be created by implementing the Collector interface or describing the implementation as a lambda expression, both cases passing it as arguments to the collect method of the Stream object. In this example would be just calling the collect method instead toList if would have some complex type of object per item for the collection.

Both examples could also be done with IntStream and IntSupplier and avoid the Integer generic in the Supplier interface implementation, but the generic is used to preserve greater similarity with the C# example.

Functional Style
The above algorithm can be written even more consistently, using Stream.iterate. The iterate method receives a seed parameter, and a function that specifies what to do for each iteration. In this case, the seed can be a record class with the 2 initial values of the algorithm, and its respective transformation in each iteration. In short, the iterate method makes unnecessary the implementation of a Supplier.

 * Notes for the C# version:
 * The method is defined as returning instances of the interface, which allows client code to repeatedly request the next number of a sequence.
 * The keyword converts the method into a generator method.
 * The statement returns the next number of the sequence and creates a continuation so that subsequent invocations of the  interface's  method will continue execution from the following statement with all local variables intact.
 * Tuple-assignment avoids the need to create and use a temporary variable when updating the values of the variables a and b.
 * }

title: Comparison of C Sharp and Java


text:
User:Flyx

Hello,

So this is my little Wiki page he ?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Flyx


text:
Mishkinsky District

Mishkinsky District is the name of several administrative and municipal districts in Russia:
 * Mishkinsky District, Republic of Bashkortostan, an administrative and municipal district of the Republic of Bashkortostan
 * Mishkinsky District, Kurgan Oblast, an administrative and municipal district of Kurgan Oblast

title: Mishkinsky District


text:
Talk:Wolfgang Borchert

Untitled
Sorry, this is not my day. Could a native speaker please take a look at this? Get-back-world-respect 17:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Some questions as I go -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC):
 * "which he found hard to stand" - was it his being conscripted that he found hard to stand, or conditions at the front? (I'm guessing mostly the latter) Given that probably everyone found the eastern front hard to stand, we should say why he in particular found it problematic. Didn't like military life?  Found the violence sickening?  Or just general worn-down by the whole experience?
 * "Borchert had conflicts with the Hitlerjugend" (btw, I think I'll change that to "Hitler Youth" and link to it, as it's usually called that in english). "had conflicts" is a bit unclear - was he in the HJ and didn't like it, or was he not in it, and got into fights with its members.
 * "was affected by the Gestapo": again, a bit unclear. Arrested? Harassed? Beaten-up? Spied-upon?
 * "He could flee..." "and marched home 600 kilometers"  I take this to mean that he did flee, and did walk home, yes?
 * "a specialized hospital in Switzerland" - I assume this hospital specialised in hepatitis, and that hepatitis was also his cause of death?
 * is "statements endangering the country" the name of the actual crime?
 * do you know anything about his family background - I find it makes the first sentence of a biography read well if it goes something like: "Born in Hamburg in 1921, the son of a Silesian accountant...". It's not necessary, but it gives us something to write about for the first 20 or so years of his life, which (for most people) is rather uneventful.
 * if I read the Esperanto version right, wasn't his first theatre in Lüneburg?
 * when did he enter the sanitorium (which month)?

Pfew. I'm done, I think (sorry, looks like I took "edited mercilessly" to heart). I think it reads okay, except for the "Borchert had conflicts..." sentence, which is abominable. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:10, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help, I think you improved it greatly. Regarding the questions:

 * "hard to stand" has gone, so that is solved.
 * conflicts with Hitlerjugend means he was in but was disgusted by it, it was not easy to leave if you wanted but he managed to do so
 * I have no idea why I wrote "affected".
 * He did flee, and did walk home, yes.
 * He was treated for the liver disease which was also the cause of his death, but I only know that the hospital was deemed to be better in treating the illness than others, I doubt that it was a clinic especially for people with hepatitis
 * the actual name of the "crime" was "staatsgefährdende Äußerungen", which I translated literally
 * he was the only child of regional author Hertha Borchert and teacher Fritz Borchert.
 * As far as I know his first theatre was in Hannover and I do not know in which month he entered the sanatorium in Switzerland. Get-back-world-respect 20:42, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think I'm done now. I chunked it up into a pre-war, a war, and a post-war paragraph, which seems like a sensible idea. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Umm... The translation for Draußen vor der Tür Should be Outside in Front of the Door or Outside Before the Door, shouldn't it? Has anyone seen a Translation fo the book that calls it The Man Outside? Not only does this translation lose the denotation, the connotation is lost as well. -- Knapp 21:52 15 November 2006.

 * The English translation does indeed seem to be called "The Man Outside". It is presumably trying to get across the literal meaning of the German as well as the implied alienation, being left out in the cold, almost an outcast, not able/allowed to join in. It's a long time since I read it; so I don't remember the plot very well, but I do remember that atmosphere, with the ex-POW returning home to find his old life gone, stolen, and unable to re-join society. Not to be read if you are feeling depressed to start with. --Boson 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I've seen that translation, but I also saw it translated to "Outside the Door" in an essay (presumable self-translated from the German). I think this hits both the literal and symbolic meaning better. Since the most prominent English translation is "The Man Outside" I don't recommend we change it, but perhaps add something along the lines of literally, "Outside the Door"? CKnapp 22:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd have no objection to adding the literal translation, e.g. "literally "outside the door", English translation published as "The Man Outside" - unless there's some established practice for book titles. Perhaps it should be policy to always state if the English is the title under which it was published in English-speaking countries or something else. Although I'm not especially fond of the "official" translation, I don't think that the literal translation gets the connotations across particularly well. To me, "draußen vor der Tür" (bleiben) has connotations of someone or something being effectively excluded or denied access (outside, in the cold), whereas "outside the door" conveys that someone or something is about to enter (or attempt entry), more like the German "vor der Tür" without the "draußen". --Boson 07:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * We could continue this conversation on the translation for a while; however, I don't think it is of much use on this page. I'm going to respond to your comment on my talk page, because I'm interested in this discussion-if you are interested in the conversation, feel free to talk. If not, no hard feelings. CKnapp 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a problem, but the text is repeated basically verbatim at http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Borchert_Wolfgang.html ... thought someone ought to know. Keenescout (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammar/typo
Hi there,

I just noticed this: " he began working at for the travelling theatre". Perhaps this can be changed?

title: Talk:Wolfgang Borchert


text:
Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates

Previous discussions:

 * Archive 1: May 2004 - February 2005
 * Archive 2: March 2005 - September 2005
 * Archive 3: October 2005 - February 2006
 * Poll: March's (now closed) poll on Policy Clarification
 * Archive 4: February 2006 - June 2006


text:
Nathan Clifford

Nathan Clifford (August 18, 1803 – July 25, 1881) was an American statesman, diplomat and jurist.

Clifford is one of the few people who have held a constitutional office in each of the three branches of the U.S. federal government. He represented Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1839 to 1843, then served in the administration of President James K. Polk as the U.S. Attorney General from 1846 to 1848 and as the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico from 1848 to 1849. In the latter office, he signed the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. In 1858, President James Buchanan appointed Clifford to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Clifford served on the Supreme Court until his death in 1881.

Early life and education
Clifford was born on August 18, 1803, in Rumney, New Hampshire, to Deacon Nathaniel Clifford and his wife Lydia (née Simpson). He was the eldest and only son of seven children. His family were of old Yankee stock. As a young girl in 1672, his great-great-grandmother Ann Smith was an accuser of Goody Cole, the only woman in New Hampshire convicted of witchcraft.

He attended the public schools of that town, then the Haverhill Academy in New Hampshire, and finally the New Hampton Literary Institute (now known as the New Hampton School).

Early career
After teaching school for a time, he studied law in the offices of Josiah Quincy III and was admitted to the bar in Maine in 1827, establishing his first practice in Newfield, Maine.

He served in the Maine House of Representatives from 1830 to 1834 and served as Speaker of the House from 1833 to 1834. He was then Maine Attorney General from 1834 to 1838, when he entered national politics.

U.S. House of Representatives (1839–43)
Initially, Clifford ran for the Senate and lost. Then, Clifford was elected as a Democratic Representative to the 26th and 27th Congresses, serving March 4, 1839 through March 3, 1843.

In Washington, D.C., he followed the Democratic party line on policies, and was a strong supporter of the Van Buren administration. Clifford was opposed to a high tariff, supported internal improvements, endorsed state banking, and was in favor of federal retrenchment. He also criticized abolition, saying that its supporters were well intentioned but denounced the "mean and incendiary schemes of political Abolitionists."

Due to re-redistricting and political infighting, Clifford was not a candidate for re-election in 1842.

U.S. Attorney General (1846–48)
In 1846, President James K. Polk appointed him 19th Attorney General of the United States after his predecessor, John Y. Mason, returned to being Naval Secretary. Clifford served in Polk's Cabinet from October 17, 1846, to March 17, 1848.

Ambassador to Mexico (1848–49)
Clifford resigned his post with the Justice Department to become the U.S. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico, serving from March 18, 1848, to September 6, 1849. It was through Clifford that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was arranged with Mexico, by which California became a part of the United States.

A Whig Presidential victory meant that Clifford was recalled to the United States. Following his service in the diplomatic corps, Clifford resumed the practice of law in Portland, Maine.

Appointment
On December 9, 1857, President James Buchanan nominated Clifford as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, to a seat vacated by Benjamin R. Curtis. Clifford's nomination came in the immediate wake of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision and was hotly contested. As a longtime partisan Democrat, the opposition labeled Clifford a political hack and a "doughface" — a Northern man with Southern sympathies. Anti-slavery representatives in the United States Senate fiercely opposed Clifford due to his pro-slavery record. After a 34-day-long confirmation process, the U.S. senate narrowly confirmed Clifford on January 12, 1858, by a 26–23 vote. He was sworn into office on January 21, 1858.

At the time Clifford joined the Court, all but one of the justices were affiliated with the Democratic Party. By 1872, Clifford had outlived his Democratic colleagues, and his new Republican colleagues tended to outvote him for his remaining nine years on the Court. Therefore, about one-fifth of all his opinions were in dissent. He wrote the majority opinion in 398 cases. His opinions were comprehensive essays on law and have sometimes been criticized as overly lengthy and digressive.

Legal philosophy
Justice Clifford rarely declared any legal philosophy about the U.S. Constitution but believed in a sharp dividing line between federal and state authority. One admirer, U.S. Senator James W. Bradbury, said Clifford's view was that the Constitution was not an "elastic instrument to be enlarged or impaired by construction, but to be fairly interpreted according to its terms, and sacredly maintained in all its provisions and limitations, as the best guaranty for the perpetuity of our republican institutions." Clifford supported a mechanical jurisprudence adhering to the strict text of the Constitution.

Clifford's fields of expertise were commercial and maritime law, Mexican land grants, and procedure and practice. Clifford's major contribution to constitutional interpretation may have been his dissent in Loan Association v. Topeka rejecting "natural law" or any ground other than clear constitutional provision as a basis for the Court to use to strike down legislative acts.

Civil War
During the Civil War, Clifford remained loyal to the Union. He distrusted federal authority, but generally upheld federal power as far as was necessary to prosecute the war. Some exceptions were the Prize Cases, where he joined the dissent in arguing that the blockade of the Confederacy was illegal without a declaration of war, and Ex parte Milligan, where he joined the majority to limit the use of military tribunals to prosecute citizens when civilian courts were available.

Reconstruction
During Reconstruction, Clifford continued his skepticism of the federal government, now unrestrained by any consideration for the exigencies of wartime emergency powers. He more readily voted to limit federal power and make it easier for the South to rejoin the Union. In Cummings v. Missouri and Ex parte Garland, Clifford joined the majority in outlawing test oaths as part of the conditions of returning to the Union.

Legal Tender cases
Perhaps Clifford's most prominent declaration against exercise of federal authority came in the Legal Tender cases. The cases dealt with the Legal Tender Act of 1862, passed to permit the issuance of paper money to pay war debts and establishing that paper currency would be valid as legal tender. In Hepburn v. Griswold (1870), a debtor whose note was made prior to the Act's passage challenged its application to her debt. Clifford joined the majority in a 5–3 decision holding that the Legal Tender Act could not constitutionally apply to preexisting debts.

Almost immediately after Griswold, the composition of the Supreme Court changed. Terminally ill Justice Robert Grier, who had joined the majority in Hepburn, resigned. President Ulysses S. Grant filled his seat with William Strong. The Court was also expanded by an Act of Congress from eight to nine members, with Joseph Bradley filling the new seat.

This change had an immediate impact on the pending case Knox v. Lee (1871). The case dealt with remuneration for goods confiscated by the Confederate Army. The lower court ruled that the plaintiff must be repaid in paper money and that the defendant had to pay the difference in the valuation of the goods in gold to greenbacks. Justice Clifford, joined by Justices Field and Nelson, dissented from the grant of certiorari, stating publicly, "I dissent from the order of the Court in these cases, especially from that part of it which opens for re-argument the question whether... the Legal Tender Act is constitutional as to contracts made before its passage—as I hold that the question is conclusively settled by the case of Hepburn vs Griswold..."

On May 1, 1871, the Court ruled 5–4 to overturn Hepburn v. Griswold and find the Legal Tender Act constitutional — facially and as applied to pre-existing debt. The four justices who formed the majority in Hepburn (minus the late Justice Grier) all dissented in Knox. The new justices, Bradley and Strong, were the deciding factor. Clifford submitted an 18,000 word dissent, angered that the Court would reverse its opinion in such a short amount of time. He also argued that the Legal Tender Act was facially unconstitutional, arguing that only hard money (gold and silver) with intrinsic value could serve as legal tender.

Reconstruction amendments
Clifford held to a limited interpretation of the Reconstruction amendments. He joined the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), which distinguished state and federal citizenship and held that the Fourteenth Amendment only protects the narrower rights of federal citizens. In Hall v. DeCuir (1878), Justice Clifford wrote a separate concurrence to uphold segregation on steamships, coining the phrase "equality is not identity." His concurrence may have foreshadowed the principle of "separate but equal" laid down after his death, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1893).

Compromise of 1877
Clifford was president of the Electoral Commission convened in 1877 to determine the outcome of the 1876 presidential election. Clifford voted for fellow Democrat Samuel Tilden, but Rutherford B. Hayes won by a single vote.

Clifford believed that the commission erred in nullifying Tilden's apparent victory and never accepted Hayes as the lawful president. Still, he signed off on Hayes' order for inauguration. In this instance Clifford put the country before his strong party beliefs, and his personal hope of having a Democratic president choose his successor.

By 1877, Clifford's mental faculties had declined and impaired his ability to be an effective Justice. Justice Samuel Miller wrote that Clifford's mental deterioration was "obvious to all of the Court" and "in the work we do, no man ought to be there after 70." (Clifford was 74.) In 1880, Clifford experienced a stroke that, according to Miller, "rendered him a babbling idiot." He did not participate in any cases during that year, but still refused to step down, hoping that a Democratic president would be elected in 1880 and appoint a successor. He died on July 25, 1881, his successor on the bench, Horace Gray, instead being appointed by Republican president Chester Arthur.

Personal life
As a young lawyer in Newfield, Clifford met his wife, Hannah Ayer. They had six children.

Death and legacy
Clifford died on July 25, 1881, in Cornish, Maine, and is interred in Evergreen Cemetery in Portland.

The Nathan Clifford Elementary School in Portland is named for him. Clifford's son, William Henry Clifford, was a successful lawyer and an unsuccessful candidate for the Maine State House of Representatives. His grandson, also named Nathan Clifford, was also a lawyer and briefly president of the Maine State Senate.

title: Nathan Clifford