Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.help > #1294

Re: Enum basics

Show all headers | View raw

On 11-11-05 06:06 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 11/5/2011 9:15 AM, Lew wrote:
> ...
>> Contrary to the crap you put forward, Roedy, you don't have to be a
>> "language lawyer" to understand the cited passages, either.  Just a
>> programmer.
> 
> Lew's claim seems to be that any programmer can read the JLS. Roedy's
> claim seems to be that JLS reading is a specialized skill, distinct
> from, and in addition to, general programming skill.
> 
> This is actually an interesting question. To me, the JLS seems the
> clearest description of Java I have found, and is my go-to document when
> I want to know anything about the core language, as distinct from the
> libraries.
> 
> However, I had studied the theory of formal grammars and compiler
> construction, worked on compilers, and read several other language
> specifications before Java was invented. I may be a "language lawyer".
> 
> I'm interpreting "a programmer" as someone who can program, without
> requiring any other skill. This question could easily become circular if
> inability to read the JLS were treated as evidence of not being a
> programmer.
> 
> So, here is a question for people who can program in Java, or can
> program in at least one other language and are learning Java:
> 
> Can you understand the JLS?
> 
> Patricia

I can understand the JLS. It's just not that the JLS is the clearest
description, it's that it is a *clear* description.

In theory (and in practice) a lot of programmers can get by without
language specs, just like a lot get by without reading APIs. They are
hurting themselves, but they get by. Maybe by knowing what the good
blogs and articles are. However, a truly professional programmer must be
aware of what the relevant documentation is, and be prepared to use it.
It saves time, and is more reliable.

I think we can all agree that some specifications are mediocre or
atrocious. A number of W3C specs come to mind. In other words, some
specs are hard to understand, and/or contain errors or ambiguities.
Anyone could be forgiven for confessing problems with these. But most
specs, including the JLS, are adequate or better, and IMHO if you can't
understand these then you're not a programmer. You're a hacker.

AHS
-- 
You should know the problem before you try to solve it.
Example: When my son was three he cried about a problem with his hand. I
kissed it several times and asked him about the problem. He peed on his
hand.
-- Radia Perlman, inventor of spanning tree protocol

Back to comp.lang.java.help | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Enum basics Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-04 15:11 -0700
  Re: Enum basics "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-11-04 20:44 -0400
    Re: Enum basics Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 20:27 -0700
      Re: Enum basics "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-11-05 02:23 -0400
        Re: Enum basics Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 00:51 -0700
      Re: Enum basics Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-05 04:12 -0700
        Re: Enum basics Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 09:15 -0700
          Re: Enum basics Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-05 14:06 -0700
            Re: Enum basics Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 15:54 -0700
            Re: Enum basics Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-05 20:43 -0300
            Re: Enum basics markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-05 19:55 -0700
            Re: Enum basics Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-11-05 22:10 -0500
  Re: Enum basics Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-05 04:18 -0700

csiph-web