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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #16414 > unrolled thread

Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML??

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-10ae-this> - 2012-07-27 18:40 +0000
    Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Patricia Shanahan" <patricia.shanahan@1:261/38.remove-10ae-this> - 2012-07-27 18:41 +0000
      Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2012-07-28 11:32 -0500
      Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Wanja Gayk" <wanja.gayk@1:261/38.remove-5qr-this> - 2012-08-04 18:41 +0000
        Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Patricia Shanahan" <patricia.shanahan@1:261/38.remove-5qr-this> - 2012-08-04 18:41 +0000
          Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <john.b..matthews@1:261/38.remove-2y0-this> - 2012-08-05 18:42 +0000
          Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-p82-this> - 2012-08-08 06:20 +0000
      Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-p82-this> - 2012-08-08 06:20 +0000
    Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-10ae-this> - 2012-07-27 18:41 +0000

#16414 — Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML??

  To: Patricia Shanahan
From: Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk>

On 7/26/2012 2:01 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 10:10 AM, Arne Vajhoj wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 12:36 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 7/25/2012 6:00 PM, Arne Vajhoj wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> You were interested to learn the Wirchenko language that just
>>>> happened to be compilable with a Java compiler because it has
>>>> the same grammar.
>>>
>>> The question of whether something is or is not Java seems to me to be
>>> one for which the JLS is indeed the ultimate authority. Can you point
>>> out in some way in which Gene's programs failed to conform to the JLS?
>>
>> If it did not conform to the JLS then hopefully the Java compiler would
>> not compile it.
>>
>> But I assume that the question was rhetorical.You know what I mean, but
>> disagree (which is fine).
>
> I'm not sure I know what you mean. Whether something is Java or not is a
> question of fact, and should be settled by reference to the JLS.
 >
> It may be quite reasonable to decide that you are only willing to
> respond to questions from people who follow conventions you like, but I
> don't think it is reasonable to call something not Java because it does
> not follow those conventions.

Whether some code is valid in the Java language and its semantics are obviously 
defined by the JLS.

But Java comes with a baggage of history, philosophy, traditions and lessons 
learned.

Java developers are not all identical.

If we look at some of the statements made in various threads:
- OOP is just overhead
- patterns are useless
- micro optimizations are good
- public fields are OK
- interfaces are useless
- I don't want to follow the standard naming convention
- I don't want to follow the standard formatting convention
- I don't want to use the Java library because my own is better
- portability is useless
- unit tests are useless
- ORM's are useless
- make is the right build tool for Java
- UML is useles
- Java docs are useless
etc.
then the archetype Java developer would not believe in any of them.

But many Java developers actually believe in a few of them, because people are 
different with different personal experiences and working in different domains. 
And best practices are not an exact science.

Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical about 
calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code is following 
JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no overlap with the Java 
world. It is not the Java way. And if the person tried to write such code at 
work, then the person would be kicked out quickly in many places. It is not 
what companies expect when they hire a Java developer.

People are not born with knowledge about good Java practices. They learn them 
along the way.

I find it natural that people posting problems in cljp are violating some 
common best practices in Java. If they knew everything then they would probably 
not have a problem to post.

I am all for helping them with their problem. And also guiding them towards 
better practices. I do that as well. I don't think I am among the most rigorous 
in that regard though.

If people notice the well meant suggestions and over time adjust, then I am 
happy.

If they chose to ignore the good advice, then I am disappointed but not 
surprised. That is how it is. I don't maintain a black list so I will most 
likely try and help them again - and get disappointed again. But I know that is 
how it is. C'est la vie. And having to maintain the code they end up with is a 
severe punishment in itself!

But there are a few things that get me in flame mode:

1) Complaints from posters that they just want their miserable
    code fixed without any good advice. That is what one can request
    for 250 dollars an hour. If one want free advice, then one has
    to accept the full package of advice.

2) Attempts to recommend the bad practices to other. Either explicit
    or implicit by criticizing when somebody points out the problems
    in some code.

Arne

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16422

  To: Arne Vajhøj
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>

On 7/26/2012 11:47 AM, Arne Vajhoj wrote: ...
> Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
> about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
> is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
> overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
> person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
> kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
> when they hire a Java developer.
...

I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies. Java happens to be 
a favorite tool, one that fits my brain the way my favorite wood carving chisel 
fits my hand. On the other hand, I no more subscribe to "the Java way" than to 
a "the half inch chisel way".

When I'm starting a new program, in a situation in which I'm free to use any 
standards I like, I follow the commonest conventions for the program's 
language. If I'm modifying or adding to an existing project, or working in an 
organization that has other conventions, I follow the local conventions.

Patricia

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16447

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:41:01 +0000, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

> To: Arne Vajh°j
> From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
> 
> On 7/26/2012 11:47 AM, Arne Vajhoj wrote: ...
>> Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
>> about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
>> is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
>> overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
>> person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
>> kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
>> when they hire a Java developer.
> ...
> 
> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies. Java happens to be 
> a favorite tool, one that fits my brain the way my favorite wood carving chisel 
> fits my hand. On the other hand, I no more subscribe to "the Java way" than to 
> a "the half inch chisel way".
> 
> When I'm starting a new program, in a situation in which I'm free to use any 
> standards I like, I follow the commonest conventions for the program's 
> language. If I'm modifying or adding to an existing project, or working in an 
> organization that has other conventions, I follow the local conventions.
> 
> Patricia
> 
> --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
>  * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
> --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
> Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

I agree with Patricia, eloquently articulated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17164

  To: Patricia Shanahan
From: Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com>

In article <EvSdnXhPjOT-IY_NnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, pats@acm.org 
says...

> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.

You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old hand shovel, 
but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's arm with our hands to 
dig a hole, just because that's the way you operated your old hand shovel for 
the past 10 years, and you're used to that.

Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do the same job 
(creating a hole), but they want to be used the way their inventors have 
imagined, not the way you have used another tool previously. It may still work 
though, but I doubt it's the brightest idea.

Kind regards,
Wanja

--
..Alesi's problem was that the back of the car was jumping up and down 
dangerously - and I can assure you from having been teammate to Jean Alesi and 
knowing what kind of cars that he can pull up with, when Jean Alesi says that a 
car is dangerous - it is. [Jonathan Palmer]

-+- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net
-+-

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17168

  To: Wanja Gayk
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>

On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
> In article <EvSdnXhPjOT-IY_NnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> pats@acm.org says...
>
>> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.
>
> You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old hand
> shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's arm with
> our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you operated your
> old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're used to that.
>
> Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do the
> same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way their
> inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another tool
> previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the brightest
> idea.

There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective use of a 
given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the wood, and tap the 
blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a wood chisel and a mallet 
does that the same way round.

The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as though the 
excavator were delivered with green paint, and most excavators of that model 
were painted green. A particular user has a lot of hole-related tools such as 
pile drivers and other models of excavators, and choose to paint all of them 
blue to avoid the inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.

He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people take one 
look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it should be green, 
that he will never be a capable excavator user unless he paints it green, and 
that green paint is the excavator way.

Patricia

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17231

  To: Patricia Shanahan
From: "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid>

In article <i8-dnR2vnZbqqIDNnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:

> On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
> > In article <EvSdnXhPjOT-IY_NnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> > pats@acm.org says...
> >
> >> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.
> >
> > You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old
> > hand shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's
> > arm with our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you
> > operated your old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're
> > used to that.
> >
> > Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do
> > the same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way
> > their inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another
> > tool previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the
> > brightest idea.
>
> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective
> use of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the
> wood, and tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a
> wood chisel and a mallet does that the same way round.

One sharp on both ends might be widely rejected as dangerous; one blunt on both 
ends might be an unfamiliar style of draw knife. I see no harm in polite 
explication in either case.

> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as
> though the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most
> excavators of that model were painted green. A particular user has a
> lot of hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of
> excavators, and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the
> inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.
>
> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
> take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
> should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user
> unless he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.

A medical supply vendor asks for help marketing a new line of compressed 
nitrous oxide. Instead of the familiar blue, the tanks are green, "nitrous" is 
almost illegible, and "oxide" is misspelled in a particularly unfortunate way. 
No one comments. An errant bottle finds its way to a matching green oxygen 
manifold; hapless victims enter a persistent vegetative state. Misery ensues.

As a practical matter, most stylistic vagaries fall between these consequential 
extremes. I would encourage posters to welcome related answers, both those that 
cite a problem and those that comment on its relative importance.

--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17335

  To: Patricia Shanahan
From: Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk>

On 8/4/2012 10:45 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>> In article <EvSdnXhPjOT-IY_NnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>> pats@acm.org says...
>>
>>> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.
>>
>> You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old hand
>> shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's arm with
>> our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you operated your
>> old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're used to that.
>>
>> Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do the
>> same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way their
>> inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another tool
>> previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the brightest
>> idea.
>
> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective use
> of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the wood, and
> tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a wood chisel
> and a mallet does that the same way round.
>
> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as though
> the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most excavators of
> that model were painted green. A particular user has a lot of
> hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of excavators,
> and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the inconvenience of
> keeping different paint colors around.
>
> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
> take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
> should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user unless
> he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.

That is a lousy analogy.

There should not be any real impact due to different colors of the excavators.

There are real (negative!) impact of using:
- different coding conventions
- different diagram symbols

Arne

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17334

  To: Patricia Shanahan
From: Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk>

On 7/27/2012 12:05 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 11:47 AM, Arne Vajhoj wrote:
> ...
>> Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
>> about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
>> is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
>> overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
>> person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
>> kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
>> when they hire a Java developer.
> ...
>
> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies. Java
> happens to be a favorite tool, one that fits my brain the way my
> favorite wood carving chisel fits my hand. On the other hand, I no more
> subscribe to "the Java way" than to a "the half inch chisel way".
>
> When I'm starting a new program, in a situation in which I'm free to use
> any standards I like, I follow the commonest conventions for the
> program's language. If I'm modifying or adding to an existing project,
> or working in an organization that has other conventions, I follow the
> local conventions.

So in reality you are subscribing to the Java way.

Arne

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16424

  To: Arne Vajhøj
From: Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:47:46 -0400, Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

>On 7/26/2012 2:01 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

[snip]

>> It may be quite reasonable to decide that you are only willing to
>> respond to questions from people who follow conventions you like, but I
>> don't think it is reasonable to call something not Java because it does
>> not follow those conventions.
>
>Whether some code is valid in the Java language and its semantics
>are obviously defined by the JLS.
>
>But Java comes with a baggage of history, philosophy,
>traditions and lessons learned.

     And mistakes made.  Every language has its downside even _____.
(Fill in the blank however you choose.)

>Java developers are not all identical.
>
>If we look at some of the statements made in various threads:
>- OOP is just overhead
>- patterns are useless
>- micro optimizations are good
>- public fields are OK
>- interfaces are useless
>- I don't want to follow the standard naming convention
>- I don't want to follow the standard formatting convention
>- I don't want to use the Java library because my own is better
>- portability is useless
>- unit tests are useless
>- ORM's are useless
>- make is the right build tool for Java
>- UML is useles
>- Java docs are useless
>etc.
>then the archetype Java developer would not believe in any of them.

     Oh?

     These statements are written as binary.  Either it is right or it
is wrong.  And many are just bait.

     Take the first one.  "OOP is just overhead"  OOP does have
overhead.  That might or might not matter.  If the benefits of OOP outweigh the 
disadvantages, it may well be used.  In another situation, it might not do.  In 
many, it does not matter.

     Other points can be disposed of similarly.  There are only a few
that I would totally agree with.

>But many Java developers actually believe in a few of them, because
>people are different with different personal experiences and working
>in different domains. And best practices are not an exact science.

     Quite.

>Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
>about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
>is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
>overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
>person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
>kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
>when they hire a Java developer.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web