Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!204.52.135.9.MISMATCH!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!69.16.185.11.MISMATCH!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: I need a different approach - suggestions please Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 28 Message-ID: <8a5cafca-755d-4ac2-8ea8-c152e39ad511@googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.28.149.29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340746593 6499 127.0.0.1 (26 Jun 2012 21:36:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:36:33 +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 X-Received-Bytes: 2336 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:15619 markspace wrote: > bilsch wrote: >> Many things are because I mimic what I see in other programs... I >> hope I can finish this project without understanding threads > > > Yeah, that's an issue. When teaching someone, is it better to let them > do it the simplest, but wrong, way? Or should you teach them to write > code they don't understand, but promise too "explain it later?" > > I'm actually in the latter camp at the moment. I'd rather see you copy > and paste good code, than let you get into the habit of writing bad code > that you feel you understand. It a style of learning thing, more than a > programming thing, but I think it's better to get you into the habit of > looking at correct code now, so it doesn't seem strange when you see the > correct version later. > > OTOH, it's not going to adversely effect your small programs. The > chance of you hitting a threading error in such a small program is > virtually nil. Just be aware that: 1. the code really is wrong, and 2. > you'll have to learn threads eventually. They've already hit a threading error. How is that "virtually nil" chance? -- Lew