Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 52 Message-ID: <2d84a3f9-fd83-42ae-a841-629d1e420752@googlegroups.com> References: <500cbc5d$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <3qcr08lkpvcmhe0drpffhegusd6k2a1670@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.28.149.29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1343164696 7417 127.0.0.1 (24 Jul 2012 21:18:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:18:16 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.28.149.29; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:16318 Gene Wirchenko wrote: > John B. Matthews wrote: > > [snip] > >> I would argue that a single click from any included class or interface >> qualifies as "easily found." Naturally one may wish for more. When Java >> 5 - a particularly eventful revision- was new to me, I kept a copy of the >> API under local version control for the purpose of adding/updating >> useful links. YMMV > > One also has to know that it exists. I do not remember seeing > the stuff at page top that I see now. I was primarily concerned with > individual classes, so I must have missed it. This is also a problem with hardcopy docs. > One big disadvantage of on-line documentation is that sometimes, > bits of it are hidden or not in obvious places. Hard-copy This is also a problem with hardcopy docs. > documentation has the advantage of nothing being hidden. If you go I guess I'm less fortunate than you. The hardcopy docs I've used over the years often had references in other volumes, links to material in far-removed locations within a doc set, incomplete definitions > through the whole book, you get all of the content. So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then? Then you'd have no excuse to lack the information, according to your logic. All you have to do is go through the whole book, right? Also, you assume only one book's worth of documentation. That is optimistic in many contexts. I've used hardcopy programmer's docs and online, and while you might find it easier to use the hardcopy multi-volume sets with footnotes pointing you to volumes not in hand, I personally find online docs both easier to use and easier to search. -- Lew If I'm ever stranded on a desert island with only one book, I want that book to be an unabridged dictionary because it contains every other book ever written. All you have to do is read the words out of the dictionary in the right order.