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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #8904 > unrolled thread

generics puzzle

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

Contents

  generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-17 10:41 +0000
    Re: generics puzzle Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2011-10-17 13:14 +0100
      Re: generics puzzle Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-10-17 15:14 +0100
      Re: generics puzzle markspace <-@.> - 2011-10-17 07:33 -0700
        Re: generics puzzle Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2011-10-17 16:26 +0100
          Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-18 14:48 +0000
        Re: generics puzzle Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-10-17 15:36 +0000
      Re: generics puzzle Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2011-10-17 08:58 -0700
        Re: generics puzzle Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2011-10-18 10:45 +0100
          Re: generics puzzle Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2011-10-18 09:42 -0700
            Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:25 +0000
              Re: generics puzzle Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2011-10-19 10:04 -0700
                Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 14:14 +0000
                  Re: generics puzzle Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2011-10-20 11:11 -0700
    Re: generics puzzle Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-17 09:12 -0700
      Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-18 14:49 +0000
        Re: generics puzzle Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-18 18:27 +0200
          Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-18 17:45 +0000
            Re: generics puzzle Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-18 22:15 +0200
            Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-18 18:59 -0700
              Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:28 +0000
                Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 17:21 -0700
                  Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-21 16:27 +0000
                    Re: generics puzzle Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-21 20:34 +0200
                      Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-22 18:50 +0000
                        Re: generics puzzle Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-10-22 21:02 +0100
                          Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 07:04 +0000
                            Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 23:25 -0700
                            Re: generics puzzle Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-10-26 21:56 +0100
                              Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-27 08:59 +0000
                            eclipse shortcuts again (was Re: generics puzzle) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-29 17:05 +0000
                              Re: eclipse shortcuts again (was Re: generics puzzle) Four of Seventeen <fseventeen@gmail.com> - 2011-10-29 19:49 -0700
                                Re: eclipse shortcuts again (was Re: generics puzzle) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 11:17 +0000
                                  Re: eclipse shortcuts again (was Re: generics puzzle) Four of Seventeen <fseventeen@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 05:39 -0700
                    Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-23 01:30 -0700
                      Re: generics puzzle Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-10-23 08:56 -0700
                        Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 02:46 -0700
                      Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 07:05 +0000
                        Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 23:29 -0700
                          Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 11:14 +0000
                            Re: generics puzzle Four of Seventeen <fseventeen@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 05:34 -0700
            Re: generics puzzle markspace <-@.> - 2011-10-18 21:21 -0700
              Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:29 +0000
                Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 17:22 -0700
                  Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-21 16:28 +0000
                Re: generics puzzle Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-10-21 06:22 -0300
                  Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-21 16:29 +0000
                  Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-23 01:20 -0700
                    Re: generics puzzle Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-10-23 09:51 +0000
                      Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-23 03:28 -0700
                        Re: generics puzzle Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-10-23 15:59 +0100
                          Re: generics puzzle Eight of Seventeen <eights17@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 02:46 -0700
                      Re: generics puzzle Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-10-23 15:55 +0100
              Re: generics puzzle Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-10-20 21:00 +0100
            Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:26 +0000
              Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-11-25 17:46 +0000
            Re: generics puzzle Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-10-21 05:57 -0300
              Re: generics puzzle blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-21 16:28 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#9326

On Oct 31, 7:14 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Eight of Seventeen <eight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 3:05 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > experience [2] suggests that at most two people might actually be
> > > interested in such a discussion,
>
> > An unsubstantiated claim.
>
> s/suggests/suggests to me/ and it doesn't need substantiation.
>
> Notice, however, that no one else seems to be clamoring for more
> in this thread -- unless the lurkers are supporting you in e-mail.

Or you.

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

#8974

On 10/18/2011 10:45 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:

> (About tools -- I'm a long-time vim user, more than a little
> fanatical about my text editor of choice, but more and more for
> Java code I find myself also starting Eclipse to do some of the
> things *it* does well, and finding more and more things in that
> category -- automatic generation of imports and boilerplate code,
> renaming of classes, etc.)


Yes, I used to be a fan of vim also, but modern IDEs, at least in the 
Java space, do too much to ignore them.  Macros/templates, automatic 
generation of source code, automatic test environments, automatic 
interfacing with SCC systems, etc.  Vim just can't keep up.  Emacs might 
be able to keep up, but I was never an emacs fan, and I don't intend to 
learn an older IDE.

Try to learn a couple of IDEs, it'll help your Java career immensely.

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

#8995

In article <j7lj89$su4$1@dont-email.me>, markspace  <-@.> wrote:
> On 10/18/2011 10:45 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> 
> > (About tools -- I'm a long-time vim user, more than a little
> > fanatical about my text editor of choice, but more and more for
> > Java code I find myself also starting Eclipse to do some of the
> > things *it* does well, and finding more and more things in that
> > category -- automatic generation of imports and boilerplate code,
> > renaming of classes, etc.)
> 
> 
> Yes, I used to be a fan of vim also, but modern IDEs, at least in the 
> Java space, do too much to ignore them.  Macros/templates, automatic 
> generation of source code, automatic test environments, automatic 
> interfacing with SCC systems, etc.  

Yeah, as I say, "more and more things" ....  

> Vim just can't keep up.  Emacs might 
> be able to keep up, but I was never an emacs fan, and I don't intend to 
> learn an older IDE.

Eh.  If I had it to do over again I'd probably choose to "bond"
with emacs rather than vi(m), because the odds of its being able to
keep up, in this sense, do seem better.  It's mildly interesting
to speculate on why that's so -- is the user community larger, or
more determined, or is there something about the tool itself? --
but only mildly.  As for whether there's any value to switching
to emacs at this point -- nah, flamebait topic, IMO.

> Try to learn a couple of IDEs, it'll help your Java career immensely.

s/career/something/ (I'm not a professional programmer these days.)

I find the interface of a typical IDE to be *WAY* too cluttered for
my tastes.  But then that's true of a lot of programs with graphical
interfaces.  Probably a YMMV thing.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

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

#9061

On Oct 19, 9:29 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Eh.  If I had it to do over again I'd probably choose to "bond"
> with emacs rather than vi(m), because the odds of its being able to
> keep up, in this sense, do seem better.

What about "bonding" with a GUI?

> I find the interface of a typical IDE to be *WAY* too cluttered for
> my tastes.  But then that's true of a lot of programs with graphical
> interfaces.  Probably a YMMV thing.

DEFINITELY a YMMV thing.

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

#9073

In article <6eed6b94-0e6c-4ae4-a44f-bf7e2015c4d1@o19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
Eight of Seventeen  <eights17@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 9:29 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Eh.  If I had it to do over again I'd probably choose to "bond"
> > with emacs rather than vi(m), because the odds of its being able to
> > keep up, in this sense, do seem better.
> 
> What about "bonding" with a GUI?

When I say "bond" here, I'm talking about something that happens
during a formative period of one's life.  I suppose it's just possible
to still have one of those at my advanced age, but it seems a bit
improbable.

As best I can remember I started using vi-based editors sometime in
the late 1980s.  I'm not sure I have enough years left to get that
much experience with something else.

> > I find the interface of a typical IDE to be *WAY* too cluttered for
> > my tastes.  But then that's true of a lot of programs with graphical
> > interfaces.  Probably a YMMV thing.
> 
> DEFINITELY a YMMV thing.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

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

#9067

On 11-10-19 10:29 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article <j7lj89$su4$1@dont-email.me>, markspace  <-@.> wrote:
>> On 10/18/2011 10:45 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
[ SNIP ]

>> Try to learn a couple of IDEs, it'll help your Java career immensely.
> 
> s/career/something/ (I'm not a professional programmer these days.)
> 
> I find the interface of a typical IDE to be *WAY* too cluttered for
> my tastes.  But then that's true of a lot of programs with graphical
> interfaces.  Probably a YMMV thing.
> 
Not to start a war here (I use vi/vim a fair bit myself, GUI programming
text editors quite a lot, *and* also full-blown IDEs), but what do _you_
consider to be an IDE exactly?

I just now separated "full-blown" IDEs from other categories, but that's
just because people seem to think that vim/emacs are somehow
intrinsically different from Notepad++/TextMate are somehow
intrinsically different from Eclipse/NetBeans/MonoDevelop/Code::Blocks.

Again, not to start a war here, but an IDE is an Integrated Development
Environment. It doesn't have to involve any GUI programs at all, in
theory. For example, I occasionally write Clojure in vim, and execute
snippets by sending them to a REPL in another terminal window using
screen. That's an IDE.

Being GUI or somewhat GUI or not GUI at all is an orthogonal question.
IDE != GUI.

For that matter, given that GUI usually means WIMP (window, icon, menu,
pointer), and one may be disposed to be critical of GUIs, what exactly
is one critical of? Especially when sporting a customized emacs
installation with windows, menus, text-based pseudo-icons, and a
rapidly-moveable cursor? ;-)

Let me put it this way, if we are arguing for simplicity of interface,
I've seen a lot of emacs setups that weren't.

AHS

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

#9075

In article <oRaoq.14283$8d4.2129@newsfe02.iad>,
Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> On 11-10-19 10:29 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > In article <j7lj89$su4$1@dont-email.me>, markspace  <-@.> wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2011 10:45 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
> 
> >> Try to learn a couple of IDEs, it'll help your Java career immensely.
> > 
> > s/career/something/ (I'm not a professional programmer these days.)
> > 
> > I find the interface of a typical IDE to be *WAY* too cluttered for
> > my tastes.  But then that's true of a lot of programs with graphical
> > interfaces.  Probably a YMMV thing.
> > 
> Not to start a war here (I use vi/vim a fair bit myself, GUI programming
> text editors quite a lot, *and* also full-blown IDEs), but what do _you_
> consider to be an IDE exactly?

Possibly the person you really want to hear from here is the one who
recommended learning a couple of them, but ....

By "typical IDE" I mean something like Eclipse or NetBeans -- i.e.,
a big complicated program with a GUI.

I don't disagree that vim or emacs with the right plugins might qualify
as an IDE (using a somewhat literal-minded definition), but *typical*
IDE, maybe not so much?

> I just now separated "full-blown" IDEs from other categories, but that's
> just because people seem to think that vim/emacs are somehow
> intrinsically different from Notepad++/TextMate are somehow
> intrinsically different from Eclipse/NetBeans/MonoDevelop/Code::Blocks.
> 
> Again, not to start a war here, but an IDE is an Integrated Development
> Environment. It doesn't have to involve any GUI programs at all, in
> theory. For example, I occasionally write Clojure in vim, and execute
> snippets by sending them to a REPL in another terminal window using
> screen. That's an IDE.
> 
> Being GUI or somewhat GUI or not GUI at all is an orthogonal question.
> IDE != GUI.
> 
> For that matter, given that GUI usually means WIMP (window, icon, menu,
> pointer), and one may be disposed to be critical of GUIs, what exactly
> is one critical of? Especially when sporting a customized emacs
> installation with windows, menus, text-based pseudo-icons, and a
> rapidly-moveable cursor? ;-)
> 
> Let me put it this way, if we are arguing for simplicity of interface,
> I've seen a lot of emacs setups that weren't.

I can believe that.  :-)

(Yeah, yeah, good points, none of which I disagree with.)

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

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

#9105

On Oct 21, 5:22 am, Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3min...@eastlink.ca>
wrote:
> On 11-10-19 10:29 AM, blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:> In article <j7lj89$su...@dont-email.me>, markspace  <-@.> wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2011 10:45 AM, blm...@myrealbox.com wrote:
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> >> Try to learn a couple of IDEs, it'll help your Java career immensely.
>
> > s/career/something/ (I'm not a professional programmer these days.)
>
> > I find the interface of a typical IDE to be *WAY* too cluttered for
> > my tastes.  But then that's true of a lot of programs with graphical
> > interfaces.  Probably a YMMV thing.
>
> Not to start a war here (I use vi/vim a fair bit myself, GUI programming
> text editors quite a lot, *and* also full-blown IDEs), but what do _you_
> consider to be an IDE exactly?

After having used, and gotten used to, modern software with a proper
user interface, why the hell would you ever use vi, or anything like
it, ever again? Serious question.

> Again, not to start a war here, but an IDE is an Integrated Development
> Environment. It doesn't have to involve any GUI programs at all, in
> theory. For example, I occasionally write Clojure in vim,

Isn't that that new Lisp dialect? Ewwww.

> and execute snippets by sending them to a REPL in another terminal
> window using screen. That's an IDE.

Are you on crack? That's an IDE in much the way that four wheels, two
axles, and a big metal box all sitting around in a junkyard is a car.
In particular, you're obviously forgetting that the "I" in "IDE"
stands for "integrated".

> For that matter, given that GUI usually means WIMP (window, icon, menu,
> pointer), and one may be disposed to be critical of GUIs, what exactly
> is one critical of? Especially when sporting a customized emacs
> installation with windows, menus, text-based pseudo-icons, and a
> rapidly-moveable cursor? ;-)

Bent talked about a bastardized half-breed emacs like that as well.
From his descriptions of its usage, trying to program with that would
be a nightmare ... no, vi is a nightmare; that thing would be more
like an anteroom of Hell Itself.

> Let me put it this way, if we are arguing for simplicity of interface,
> I've seen a lot of emacs setups that weren't.

You've seen an emacs setup that *was*?!

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

#9111

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:20:05 -0700, Eight of Seventeen wrote:

> After having used, and gotten used to, modern software with a proper
> user interface, why the hell would you ever use vi, or anything like it,
> ever again? Serious question.
>
Its a good idea to know at least how to get by with vi. Two reasons:

- it needs about the least terminal features to work correctly (this 
includes being able to work without arrow or function keys), so if your 
system gets completely borked you may need it to get out of the hole 
without data loss.

- its colon command mode is very powerful and can make repetitive changes 
much better than editors that don't understand regexes.
 

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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

#9112

On Oct 23, 5:51 am, Martin Gregorie <mar...@address-in-sig.invalid>
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:20:05 -0700, Eight of Seventeen wrote:
> > After having used, and gotten used to, modern software with a proper
> > user interface, why the hell would you ever use vi, or anything like it,
> > ever again? Serious question.
>
> Its a good idea to know at least how to get by with vi. Two reasons:
>
> - it needs about the least terminal features to work correctly (this
> includes being able to work without arrow or function keys), so if your
> system gets completely borked you may need it to get out of the hole
> without data loss.

I'd rather pull my own teeth with a string tied to a doorknob. A much
easier method is to install the hard drive into a functional system as
a slave, then bring the full power of complex, modern tools to bear
upon fixing whatever troubled files are on it that need fixing.

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

#9118

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Eight of Seventeen wrote:

> On Oct 23, 5:51 am, Martin Gregorie <mar...@address-in-sig.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:20:05 -0700, Eight of Seventeen wrote:
>>> After having used, and gotten used to, modern software with a proper
>>> user interface, why the hell would you ever use vi, or anything like it,
>>> ever again? Serious question.
>>
>> Its a good idea to know at least how to get by with vi. Two reasons:
>>
>> - it needs about the least terminal features to work correctly (this
>> includes being able to work without arrow or function keys), so if your
>> system gets completely borked you may need it to get out of the hole
>> without data loss.
>
> I'd rather pull my own teeth with a string tied to a doorknob. A much 
> easier method is to install the hard drive into a functional system as a 
> slave, then bring the full power of complex, modern tools to bear upon 
> fixing whatever troubled files are on it that need fixing.

Yeah, that works great when the drive in question is in a rack an ocean 
away. Or, indeed, a desk away - are you seriously saying you'd prefer to 
pull a disk than to SSH into a machine to fix something in a few seconds? 
Because if so, you're an idiot.

Seriously, you can argue with the use of a text-mode editor on the 
desktop, you can argue with vi being the best choice for a text-mode 
editor, but you can't argue with the utility of text-mode editors in 
general. They're an essential blade in the working geek's Swiss army 
knife.

tom

-- 
Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love!

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

#9143

On Oct 23, 10:59 am, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Eight of Seventeen wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 5:51 am, Martin Gregorie <mar...@address-in-sig.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:20:05 -0700, Eight of Seventeen wrote:
> >>> After having used, and gotten used to, modern software with a proper
> >>> user interface, why the hell would you ever use vi, or anything like it,
> >>> ever again? Serious question.
>
> >> Its a good idea to know at least how to get by with vi. Two reasons:
>
> >> - it needs about the least terminal features to work correctly (this
> >> includes being able to work without arrow or function keys), so if your
> >> system gets completely borked you may need it to get out of the hole
> >> without data loss.
>
> > I'd rather pull my own teeth with a string tied to a doorknob. A much
> > easier method is to install the hard drive into a functional system as a
> > slave, then bring the full power of complex, modern tools to bear upon
> > fixing whatever troubled files are on it that need fixing.
>
> Yeah, that works great when the drive in question is in a rack an ocean
> away.

If you have a computer system you rely on, but no reliable boots on
the ground where that system is, then that's your problem. What would
you do if the same computer suffered hardware failure?

Similarly, you have a problem if there isn't something you can do to
restore last night's backup to fix a problem when all else fails, but
the hardware's OK. Preferably, something that amounts to just pushing
a button, authenticating with some password, and confirming.

> Or, indeed, a desk away - are you seriously saying you'd prefer to
> pull a disk than to SSH into a machine to fix something in a few seconds?

If the latter entails using software that'd set my hair on fire, then
yes.

> Because if so, you're an [insult deleted].

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

> Seriously, you can argue with the use of a text-mode editor on the
> desktop, you can argue with vi being the best choice for a text-mode
> editor, but you can't argue with the utility of text-mode editors in
> general. They're an essential blade in the working geek's Swiss army
> knife.

At best, they ought to be behind a panel that says "In Case Of
Emergency, Break Glass". They're simply massively outclassed under any
other circumstances. And as I pointed out you can *usually* avoid
having to resort to such horrors even when there *is* an emergency.

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

#9117

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 01:20:05 -0700, Eight of Seventeen wrote:
>
>> After having used, and gotten used to, modern software with a proper
>> user interface, why the hell would you ever use vi, or anything like it,
>> ever again? Serious question.
>
> Its a good idea to know at least how to get by with vi. Two reasons:
>
> - it needs about the least terminal features to work correctly (this 
> includes being able to work without arrow or function keys), so if your 
> system gets completely borked you may need it to get out of the hole 
> without data loss.

ed. http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg

> - its colon command mode is very powerful and can make repetitive changes
> much better than editors that don't understand regexes.

sed. http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/help/tpl/unix/sed.html

tom

-- 
Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love!

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

#9051

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, markspace wrote:

> On 10/18/2011 10:45 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
>
>> (About tools -- I'm a long-time vim user, more than a little fanatical 
>> about my text editor of choice, but more and more for Java code I find 
>> myself also starting Eclipse to do some of the things *it* does well, 
>> and finding more and more things in that category -- automatic 
>> generation of imports and boilerplate code, renaming of classes, etc.)
>
> Yes, I used to be a fan of vim also, but modern IDEs, at least in the 
> Java space, do too much to ignore them.  Macros/templates, automatic 
> generation of source code, automatic test environments, automatic 
> interfacing with SCC systems, etc.  Vim just can't keep up.

Here's Vim keeping up:

http://eclim.org/

> Emacs might be able to keep up

Might be able to keep up with Vim:

http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsEclim

tom

-- 
Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid

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

#8991

In article <9g5salFh1jU2@mid.individual.net>,
blmblm@myrealbox.com  <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <9g5nnhFahuU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Klemme  <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/18/2011 04:49 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > > In article<45bfae98-a142-469b-9b8b-9aa8a59391f1@n13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Robert Klemme<shortcutter@googlemail.com>  wrote:
> > >> On Oct 17, 12:41 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com<blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:

[ snip ]

> > >> In your case since apparently you want to update internally why not
> > >> just introduce
> > >>
> > >> public void update() {
> > >>    set(modified());
> > >> }
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I can say why this doesn't appeal to me -- something
> > > about not wanting to clutter up GThing with unnecessary methods.
> > 
> > Why is it unnecessary?  It seems this provides a proper abstraction.  As 
> > your example shows and concluding from what you write below you do 
> > already have two or more uses for it.  So by having the method you can 
> > actually reduce redundancy.  That's a common pattern: we find we do 
> > something over and over again, we turn it into a method or procedure.
> 
> Yeah, maybe.  I'll look some more at my actual code.
> 
> > >> This will safely compile.  Basically this is what you did with
> > >> setModified() in the wrapper class.  All other approaches will be
> > >> hacky (i.e. involve explicit casting, using Object parameters or
> > >> return values etc.).
> > >
> > > Yeah, maybe ....  In my "real" code (quotation marks because it's
> > > a toy project embarked on for entertainment and a bit of education)
> > > the method in the wrapper class does more than just call modified()
> > > and then set().  I don't know that that matters much, though.  

What may matter, though, is that sometimes I want to immediately
pass the value returned by modified() to set(), while other times
I want to save the value returned by modified() locally, from where
it might or might not later be passed to set().

My most recent refactoring of the "real" code uses static generic
methods (as suggested somewhere upthread), and for now that seems
not-bad.  I'll probably change my mind again at some point.  :-)?

[ snip ]

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

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

#10226

In article <9g81fmFj6eU2@mid.individual.net>,
blmblm@myrealbox.com  <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <9g5salFh1jU2@mid.individual.net>,
> blmblm@myrealbox.com  <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <9g5nnhFahuU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Robert Klemme  <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/18/2011 04:49 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > > > In article<45bfae98-a142-469b-9b8b-9aa8a59391f1@n13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Robert Klemme<shortcutter@googlemail.com>  wrote:
> > > >> On Oct 17, 12:41 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com<blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> > > >> In your case since apparently you want to update internally why not
> > > >> just introduce
> > > >>
> > > >> public void update() {
> > > >>    set(modified());
> > > >> }
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I can say why this doesn't appeal to me -- something
> > > > about not wanting to clutter up GThing with unnecessary methods.
> > > 
> > > Why is it unnecessary?  It seems this provides a proper abstraction.  As 
> > > your example shows and concluding from what you write below you do 
> > > already have two or more uses for it.  So by having the method you can 
> > > actually reduce redundancy.  That's a common pattern: we find we do 
> > > something over and over again, we turn it into a method or procedure.
> > 
> > Yeah, maybe.  I'll look some more at my actual code.
> > 
> > > >> This will safely compile.  Basically this is what you did with
> > > >> setModified() in the wrapper class.  All other approaches will be
> > > >> hacky (i.e. involve explicit casting, using Object parameters or
> > > >> return values etc.).
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, maybe ....  In my "real" code (quotation marks because it's
> > > > a toy project embarked on for entertainment and a bit of education)
> > > > the method in the wrapper class does more than just call modified()
> > > > and then set().  I don't know that that matters much, though.  
> 
> What may matter, though, is that sometimes I want to immediately
> pass the value returned by modified() to set(), while other times
> I want to save the value returned by modified() locally, from where
> it might or might not later be passed to set().
> 
> My most recent refactoring of the "real" code uses static generic
> methods (as suggested somewhere upthread), and for now that seems
> not-bad.  I'll probably change my mind again at some point.  :-)?
> 

And I did, so -- a very belated follow-up, for the record maybe ....

Eventually, after much rearranging of the furniture, I came
around to the idea that maybe it did make more sense to put the
desired functionality in GThing.  In my "real" application I
wanted to be able to compute a possibly-temporary result and then
later optionally save it.  What I ended up doing was storing the
possibly-temporary value in the GThing (rather than returning it
for the caller to keep track of) and adding a method to GThing to
save the possibly-temporary value.  There are still some things
about this setup and how it fits into the overall application
that feel like ugly hacks, but the application does what I wanted
it to do, and at some point one has to say "good enough for now"
and move on, maybe.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

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

#9066

On 11-10-18 02:45 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article <9g5nnhFahuU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Klemme  <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
[ SNIP ]

>>
>> That's called "refactoring" - and is quite frequent with "real" code in 
>> my experience. :-)  Certainly not something to be afraid of - with 
>> proper tools it can even be fun. :-)
> 
> Well, I obviously think it's fun, or I wouldn't do so much of
> it?  I do know the term "refactoring", but to me it suggests an
> activity somehow more purposeful than what I feel like I'm doing.
> Good to know, by the way, that it does happen with real code --
> I've been away from professional programming for a long time and
> don't keep up as well as I might with current practices.
[ SNIP ]

"Refactoring", simply put, does not change the functionality of the
code. Leastways it's not supposed to.

Refactoring is done to achieve more clarity and simplicity and
maintainability (and perhaps testability). It could be as simple as
renaming a variable actually. That's purposeful refactoring.

AHS

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

#9074

In article <auaoq.1062$ZK2.250@newsfe03.iad>,
Arved Sandstrom  <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> On 11-10-18 02:45 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > In article <9g5nnhFahuU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Robert Klemme  <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
> 
> >>
> >> That's called "refactoring" - and is quite frequent with "real" code in 
> >> my experience. :-)  Certainly not something to be afraid of - with 
> >> proper tools it can even be fun. :-)
> > 
> > Well, I obviously think it's fun, or I wouldn't do so much of
> > it?  I do know the term "refactoring", but to me it suggests an
> > activity somehow more purposeful than what I feel like I'm doing.
> > Good to know, by the way, that it does happen with real code --
> > I've been away from professional programming for a long time and
> > don't keep up as well as I might with current practices.
> [ SNIP ]
> 
> "Refactoring", simply put, does not change the functionality of the
> code. Leastways it's not supposed to.
> 
> Refactoring is done to achieve more clarity and simplicity and
> maintainability (and perhaps testability). It could be as simple as
> renaming a variable actually. That's purposeful refactoring.

Yes, yes ....  I guess my point is that I'm often not convinced
that the changes I've made are actually an improvement, even with
regard to internal aspects such as clarity and maintainability --
they're *meant* to be, but whether they succeed I'm sometimes not
so sure.  Sometimes it does feel like I'm just rearranging the
furniture.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web