Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: blmblm@myrealbox.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: StringBuilder Difficulties Date: 1 Jul 2011 20:47:47 GMT Organization: None Lines: 58 Message-ID: <976q3jF3etU2@mid.individual.net> References: <9744m8FpnhU3@mid.individual.net> <6cqp07tiug2nu8u6ififvvek1694fkpfi1@4ax.com> X-Trace: individual.net Jixih9VA6ObaoLiHDsgi5Qy1+oOzESFOZwt4hEw55dCp8jZXnG X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:dxjrqHJgpOxmH/lgQ5Q2plYeTc4= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5813 In article <6cqp07tiug2nu8u6ififvvek1694fkpfi1@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On 30 Jun 2011 20:30:00 GMT, blmblm@myrealbox.com > wrote: > > [snip] > > >A general comment: I'm inclined to agree with the people who are > >saying that in general it seems like you're trying to write [name > >of your favorite language] programs in Java, and in the long term > >that seems less optimal than trying to grok the Java mindset. > > My mindset is that I want to get my work done. I do not care > about the Java mindset except as it helps me get my work done. Yes, and if you were going to do a lot of programming in Java it would seem to make sense to adapt to the local customs, so to speak. Not to do so seems to me like fighting with your tools, which, well, I do it too sometimes, but it does get in the way of getting stuff done. > >I think part of it may be struggling with the object-oriented > >paradigm, but part of it may just be coming to terms with the fact > > No, I am experienced with OOP. Huh. Well, with all due respect .... I'd have said otherwise given that all of the variables and methods in your TimingTesting program (the version I tried revising) seem to be static (except the local variables). I'm also puzzled by why that program duplicates so much code, when you could have factored out the parts that are different using objects-as-code-wrappers. But maybe the O-O languages you've used before don't make you do that, and adapting to that particular Java idiom seemed not worth the trouble. > >that Java is, as I think Patricia Shanahan said not long ago > >(possibly in another thread), that Java is just plain verbose. > > Well, I posted about the verbosity earlier and got flak over it. > > >But I have some sympathy with the desire just to get something > >running: I spent a number of hours a while back trying to teach > > And without having to buy into a language religion. Hm. I wouldn't say that adapting to local customs constitutes buying into a language religion. YMMV, I suppose. > >myself some Scheme and in the process trying make it conform to > >my strongly-typed-languages-trained mindset, and I'd probably > >have done better to get a good introductory book and try to grok > >the no-types(?) mindset. (Maybe I'll try again at some point.) -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.