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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #11951

Re: Basic question about compiling

Show all headers | View raw

On 12-02-11 04:58 PM, simplicity wrote:
> On Feb 11, 1:14 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 2/10/2012 2:48 PM, simplicity wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 10:29 am, Lew<lewbl...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> You must provide the dependencies *at run-time*.
>>
>>> Didn't I say that I know WHAT is causing it? I thought I did. What I
>>> do not know is WHY and HOW to fix it.
>>
>> If WHY is the question, then you certainly need to study some
>> more Java.
> 
> Correct. I am extremely rarely involved in projects requiring Java.
> This one is a one-off prototype to see if our toolkit can integrate
> with a Java in a browser. I did most of it after looking into docs and
> examples from the web: sample applet itself, Java to native interface,
> java policies. Unfortunately I tripped on one of the most trivial
> steps in the project - everything worked fine in Eclipse and
> appletviewer but broke when the same was loaded into a browser.
> 
> BTW, didn't it happen to you that you suddenly got the WHY part after
> someone showed you the HOW aspect? It did to me on countless
> occasions. Just as it did in this case... :-).
[ SNIP ]

HOW without the WHY is often legit. In fact you may never need to know
the WHY. That's why we've got dozens upon dozens of domain specialists
in software development. Even an individual who seems to know how to do
everything by themselves - e.g. learns how to configure a new app server
(SSL, LDAP/S, database connections, JMS, clustering, security realms
etc) in a day or less - is probably just someone who has been in the
business long enough that they have become very good at locating,
reading and applying all the HOW material: instruction manuals, online
forums, READMEs and what have you. In a number of areas there may not be
that deep WHY knowledge...and often there doesn't need to be.

Even in teaching situations where the WHY is important, and has to be
communicated, there are many approaches to getting it across. Like you
suggested, with some people you do best in showing them a HOW, and the
they make good progress with the WHY. I know folks like this. Then there
are others, and I know some like this, who do best with WHY instruction,
and only then do they handle the HOW. Most people are a combination of
the two: I learn some things best with a HOW->WHY approach, other things
best with a WHY->HOW approach.

Many of us have built C/C++ executables or libraries from scratch, on
various operating systems. Maybe it's the ./configure, make, make
install sequence, or equivalents in the VS world, doesn't matter. The
point is that most of the time we're not building the executable or
shared library because we have any interest in the source of what we're
building, and often we don't even have the slightest interest in *what*
we're building. We simply need that executable or library on the path to
accomplishing something else productive, and that build process is the
only way to get the correct binary.

Under the circumstances, if halfway through "make" you get a complicated
compile or link error, do you really care about the WHY? Not bloody
likely. If you looked at the README and INSTALL, and they even had a
section specific to your OS there, and you followed the instructions,
that error is an unexpected nuisance. If you're like me you just want to
know HOW to fix it, and couldn't care less about WHY. Off to Google we
go with the exact error, often we're lucky and some dude has a patch
suggestion for obscure.cpp or someone else tells you to tweak a compile
switch for OS version 13.4.2 because the INSTALL docs were for version
13.4.0. And you do it mindlessly, your build and install succeeds, you
often never understood the WHY, and you don't care.

It's possible to get too hung up on the "give a man a fish, teach a man
to fish" idea. Frequently the most productive thing to do, for all
concerned, is just to give the man a fish.

In other spheres of human activity we already know to balance and ration
the HOW and WHY accordingly. We do that both in horizontal and vertical
silos. Why should it be any different in software development?

As far as any given responder is concerned, we all have our strengths.
None of us are good with all the domain areas, nor with all types of
questions. By and large Lew is among the more consistently good
responders in the NG, but he'll be a mismatch for some posters. We all
are from time to time. Best thing to do is suck it up, you'll eventually
get a suitable answer, like this time from Knute. Doesn't mean that the
next time you ask on this group that your best answer won't come from Lew.

AHS
-- 
...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their
own government...
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789

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

Thread

Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-10 08:12 -0800
  Re: Basic question about compiling Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2012-02-10 09:00 -0800
    Re: Basic question about compiling Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 09:29 -0800
      Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-10 11:48 -0800
        Re: Basic question about compiling Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-10 13:11 -0800
          Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-11 13:17 -0800
            Re: Basic question about compiling Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-11 17:58 -0500
              Re: Basic question about compiling Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-11 20:11 -0800
                Re: Basic question about compiling Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-12 09:39 -0500
              Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-11 22:14 -0800
                Re: Basic question about compiling Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-02-12 00:36 -0600
                Re: Basic question about compiling Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-02-14 06:15 -0800
                Re: Basic question about compiling Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-12 09:37 -0500
                Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-12 11:04 -0800
                Re: Basic question about compiling Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-12 14:34 -0500
                Re: Basic question about compiling Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2012-02-14 12:29 +0200
                Re: Basic question about compiling RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@spamweary.invalid> - 2012-02-15 10:38 +0000
        Re: Basic question about compiling rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2012-02-11 18:57 +0000
        Re: Basic question about compiling Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-11 15:14 -0500
          Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-11 12:58 -0800
            Re: Basic question about compiling Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-11 16:18 -0500
            Re: Basic question about compiling Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-02-11 18:13 -0400
              Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-11 22:21 -0800
    Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-10 11:26 -0800
      Re: Basic question about compiling Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2012-02-10 11:37 -0800
        Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-10 11:51 -0800
        Re: Basic question about compiling simplicity <stella_pigeon@live.ca> - 2012-02-10 12:30 -0800
          Re: Basic question about compiling Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-11 15:00 -0500
        Re: Basic question about compiling Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-02-10 23:30 +0100
  Re: Basic question about compiling Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-02-11 02:33 -0800

csiph-web