Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2902
| From | Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: java.lang vs java.util |
| Date | 2011-04-06 15:34 -0400 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <inif8o$cm$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <ct9mp.1376$YL5.219@newsfe05.iad> <inbg1v$sf7$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <nKgmp.2643$0r7.2582@newsfe12.iad> <inc8uc$art$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <M-SdnY_NR6QUXQTQnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
Patricia Shanahan wrote: > You will never get fluent in Java if you think Python code is a > reasonable specification for your Java code. > > This is a problem I've seen many times in people moving from language to > language. Every language has its own idioms, its own ways of expressing > things. Translation from code in language X to code in language Y leads > to very stilted, awkward code in Y. In effect, the code is written in a > dialect of Y that contains only those features of Y that correspond > closely to features of X. Such a dialect can be very frustrating. > > It is not unique to Python and Java. I've seen it, for example, in It's not even unique to computer languages. > people moving from assembly language to C. I expect it would happen to > someone who had got too locked in on Java who tried to write Python code > from Java code, rather than by finding out what the code is intended > to achieve. > > I've sometimes had to try to reconstruct a specification from code, but > it is a messy process, liable to include things that are not required > and miss other requirements. Why do that, when there is someone who > presumably knows exactly what it is meant to do? > > Having a design document other than the code itself does not mean > "filled out in tedious detail and no doubt signed off in triplicate". It > means having one at about the level of detail you would have had in your > own mind before writing the Python code. > > I do not think that you will be happy with Java if your main criterion > for good code is short code. Java's main advantages to my mind are > readability, portability, and a tendency to catch typos at compile time. > It is not a compact language. There is a perhaps apocryphal tale of an early natural-language translation program taking "out of sight, out of mind" from English to Russian, then back to English as "invisible and crazy". -- Lew Honi soit qui mal y pense. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-02 17:11 +1300
Re: java.lang vs java.util Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-01 21:23 -0700
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-02 01:52 -0400
Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-02 09:50 -0300
Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-02 09:12 -0400
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-03 12:37 +1200
Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-03 08:05 -0400
Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 09:33 -0300
Re: java.lang vs java.util "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-02 07:57 -0700
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-03 12:38 +1200
Re: java.lang vs java.util Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-04-01 23:43 -0700
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-02 19:52 +1300
Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-03 08:05 -0400
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 10:11 +1200
Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 19:25 -0300
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 12:49 +1200
Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-03 22:50 -0300
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 16:05 +1200
Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-04 07:06 -0300
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-04-04 23:10 +1200
Re: java.lang vs java.util Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2011-04-04 06:20 -0500
Re: java.lang vs java.util rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-04 15:22 +0100
Re: java.lang vs java.util Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-04 05:58 -0700
Re: java.lang vs java.util Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-04-06 15:34 -0400
Re: java.lang vs java.util rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-04-07 10:22 +0100
Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-04 18:41 -0400
Re: java.lang vs java.util Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-04 07:04 -0300
Re: java.lang vs java.util Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-04 07:58 -0400
Re: java.lang vs java.util David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-04-04 18:46 -0400
Re: java.lang vs java.util Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-02 16:22 -0400
csiph-web