Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniele Futtorovic Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Operation in String to Double conversion Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:14:08 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <3a63483c-4322-4bfb-8c28-2d528bf48443@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3bbd2ee9bdb015c9f5605d6f287b7dfc"; logging-data="8658"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uKwoJ09yuyKmd+I9YFu72" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:sOg619xq/S98nWXBrN928YA8frk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:19385 On 15/10/2012 20:18, frank.asseg@gmail.com allegedly wrote: >> I don't think I much care for that site you link too. Too many spelling >> mistakes ("i" and "java") for me to take it seriously. > wow, sorry for not complying with your orthographical requirements, although imho that's hardly grounds to disregard the library. > maybe this site is more to your liking: > http://www.objecthunter.net/exp4j/ > although there are probably some typos in there too ;) > the lib may not be perfect, and i'm sure there are things that can be done to optimize the implementation, changes i'd be happy to adapt. so take a look at the github project and drop me a line if you have some constructive criticism regarding the implementation. You are the author that lib, right? Then allow me, for what it is worth, to opine with markspace -- not only, incidentally, with his opinion, but more importantly and fundamentally, with his approach. /Le style, c'est l'homme/, as the saying goes. Style matters. Not so much in and of itself, but to the extent of what it tells you about the author. It doesn't tell you everything, and it is not always right, but it is so more often than not. And most importantly, it allows you to come to an at least preliminary conclusion in the face of a limited set of data. Being able to make quick decisions is a crucial skill, as I am sure you'll realise, or would after giving it minimal thought. You need means to separate the wheat from the chaff -- the quicker you are able to do this, the more productive you can be. When choosing a library, you rarely have the luxury of analysing it in every last detail. Especially if it performs a fairly common, and merely cumbersome, task, picking it apart might take longer than just writing the damn thing yourself. In such a situation, you need to discriminate effectively; you need effective discriminators. Good-will and trust -- say, if it's a library published by someone whose other works you've used to your satisfaction -- can be one such discriminator, and perhaps the most important one. Failing that, or in conjunction with that, apparent style (code style, but also, as they're related, lexical and overall style) is perhaps the second most important one. That being said, your grammar and, if you'll pardon my saying so, the slight snottiness you display here notwithstanding, the code examples on your page look fairly okay, and if I were the OP, and didn't have the alternative of using the scripting engine (or if my task required functions and the other more advanced features you offer), I'd probably give your lib a good second look. My two cents. Please don't flame me. -- DF.