Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #16112 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-07-19 13:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-08-02 01:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> - 2012-07-19 13:09 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-07-19 14:12 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Ivan The Not-So-Bad <1suf41n@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-19 21:47 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-07-19 14:35 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-19 17:58 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? David LaRue <huey.dll@gte.net> - 2012-07-19 22:22 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-07-19 17:41 -0500
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-07-19 23:29 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2012-07-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-20 13:39 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-07-20 19:33 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-21 00:02 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-07-20 15:22 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-07-20 23:45 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-20 19:54 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-21 12:15 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-21 19:21 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-22 19:26 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-22 22:52 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-23 09:17 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 10:03 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-23 10:51 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 11:42 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-23 21:11 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 13:53 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-23 21:00 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 18:48 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-24 15:44 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-24 13:47 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-07-24 14:18 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-24 14:38 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-24 18:36 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-24 16:32 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-24 20:20 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 10:10 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 13:58 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 13:38 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 18:42 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-07-25 06:44 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 10:14 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2012-07-25 15:05 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 16:07 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 19:35 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 17:33 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 21:00 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-26 09:06 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-26 13:04 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-07-26 09:36 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-26 13:10 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-07-26 11:01 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-26 14:47 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-07-26 17:13 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-07-27 09:05 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-04 10:17 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-08-04 07:45 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-05 10:50 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-08-05 08:41 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-06 21:23 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-06 21:58 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-26 10:57 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-03 00:41 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 16:48 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-02 19:52 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 17:33 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-07-25 06:41 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 10:38 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-24 18:42 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-24 16:35 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-24 20:07 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-24 17:36 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 10:22 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-25 10:57 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 13:41 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 14:34 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 18:46 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 16:10 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-30 14:59 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-30 19:55 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-02 23:41 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-02 18:31 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-25 15:54 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 16:11 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 19:30 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 18:49 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 16:13 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-26 11:35 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-26 09:16 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-27 13:21 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-27 09:16 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-27 21:02 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-27 13:47 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-07-27 17:11 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-28 18:36 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-07-28 13:50 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-29 15:24 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-23 19:46 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 18:49 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-23 22:59 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-23 19:40 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-20 19:51 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-21 19:16 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-21 19:49 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-23 03:28 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-07-20 03:03 -0500
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-20 19:46 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-21 18:59 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? R kamalakkannan <kamalakkannan.ney@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 01:57 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-06 22:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <50207713$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #17115 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-06 21:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5020763c$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16408 |
On 7/27/2012 12:05 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 7/26/2012 11:47 AM, Arne Vajhøj 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-27 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85g518h6gcpeqjf00ffjfrp0g5bbav6m56@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16398 |
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:47:46 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-26 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d61318lqo5gi0okpbq2l5j5h2tgq6a3fnb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16392 |
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:36:22 -0700, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
wrote:
>On 7/25/2012 6:00 PM, Arne Vajhøj 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?
Thank you for posting that. I wish more people would consider
that.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-03 00:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2a85205e4b08ab52989730@202.177.16.121> |
| In reply to | #16381 |
In article <50109693$0$292$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk says... > > I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable > > naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java. > > Maybe not. > > But it is still a bad idea. > > And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way. "You can write FORTRAN in any language." http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535 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 ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-02 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1afab1d-5221-4409-ac6e-72bfce06a1d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17011 |
Wanja Gayk wrote: > arne@vajhoej.dk says... >>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable >>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java. > >> Maybe not. >> >> But it is still a bad idea. >> >> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way. > > "You can write FORTRAN in any language." > > http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535 Funny, but it ducks the point. And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way. I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java. -- Lew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-02 19:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <501b12a5$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #17013 |
On 8/2/2012 7:48 PM, Lew wrote: > Wanja Gayk wrote: >> arne@vajhoej.dk says... >>>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable >>>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java. >> >>> Maybe not. >>> >>> But it is still a bad idea. >>> >>> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way. >> >> "You can write FORTRAN in any language." >> >> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535 > > Funny, but it ducks the point. > > And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way. > > I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java. Somehow I think you have gotten Wanja and Gene mixed up. I have no reason to believe that Wanja is anti-"Java best pracice". In fact I see his post as being definite but subtle pro-"Java best pracice". Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-02 17:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ccaa45-1ee7-4de2-850b-ff8ce85c4ec0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17014 |
Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Lew wrote: >> Wanja Gayk wrote: >>> Arne Vajhøj says... >>>>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable >>>>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java. >>>> Maybe not. >>>> >>>> But it is still a bad idea. >>>> >>>> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way. >>> >>> "You can write FORTRAN in any language." >>> >>> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535 >> Funny, but it ducks the point. >> >> And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way. >> >> I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java. > > Somehow I think you have gotten Wanja and Gene mixed up. The lack of attributions in the post I answered is what I choose to blame. Yes, I should have researched the upthread context. So OK, I blame myself. > I have no reason to believe that Wanja is anti-"Java best pracice". > > In fact I see his post as being definite but subtle pro-"Java > best practice". I am embarrassed. You are exactly right. I apologize, Wanja. I missed your point completely. -- Lew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <juot1o$i2g$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #16319 |
Gene Wirchenko wrote: > Lew wrote: >> So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then? > > How would I get them? I'm sorry, you don't have access to a printer? I guess I presumed too much. Or you could take 60 seconds with a search engine and find <http://www.amazon.com/Java-Api-Reference-Colin-Fraizer/dp/1562055984> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Java+API+docs+as+a+book >> Then you'd have no excuse to lack the information, according to >> your logic. > > No, but it would be easier. > >> All you have to do is go through the whole book, right? > > At least, I have that possibility. With on-line docs, sometimes, > a page is accessible only from another page. If one does not know > this, one can be bitten. We're talking about the Javadocs, here, aren't we? (And the JLS, of course - available as a downloadable book.) That's not a problem with the Javadocs. >> Also, you assume only one book's worth of documentation. That >> is optimistic in many contexts. > > I do, and that is a good point. > >> I've used hardcopy programmer's docs and online, and while you >> might find it easier to use the hardcopy multi-volume sets with >> footnotes pointing you to volumes not in hand, I personally find >> online docs both easier to use and easier to search. > > I like both for their strengths. > > I find on-line docs great if I already know the area well. If I > do not, their tendency to be fragmented can make them awkward to use. The Java tutorials are also not fragmented and very easy to use. But if you want one source as a book for Java truth, the Java Language Specification is your go-to choice. -- Lew Honi soit qui mal y pense. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 10:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <501004ee$0$287$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16337 |
On 7/25/2012 9:41 AM, Lew wrote: > Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> Lew wrote: >>> So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then? >> >> How would I get them? > > I'm sorry, you don't have access to a printer? I guess I presumed too much. > > Or you could take 60 seconds with a search engine and find > <http://www.amazon.com/Java-Api-Reference-Colin-Fraizer/dp/1562055984> Due to the 60 seconds we will forgive you that you missed the "Publication Date: July 1996". A few things has changed since then. :-) Maye 120 seconds would have found something better. But I doubt it. The size problem is a real problem. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 18:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <500f24de$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16314 |
On 7/24/2012 4:47 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:44:11 -0400, "John B. Matthews" > <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> I would argue that a single click from any included class or interface >> qualifies as "easily found." Naturally one may wish for more. When Java >> 5—a particularly eventful revision—was new to me, I kept a copy of the >> API under local version control for the purpose of adding/updating >> useful links. YMMV > > One also has to know that it exists. I do not remember seeing > the stuff at page top that I see now. I was primarily concerned with > individual classes, so I must have missed it. It is relative easy to drill down the hierarchical structure: docs->package->type->member > One big disadvantage of on-line documentation is that sometimes, > bits of it are hidden or not in obvious places. Hard-copy > documentation has the advantage of nothing being hidden. If you go > through the whole book, you get all of the content. I also like books. But it is not practical with something as big as the Java API. 4000 types of average 5 pages = 20000 pages = 50 volumes of 400 pages Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 16:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4cu08tr6e6kig04ghq7av3k0sceegng1g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16321 |
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:42:36 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
>On 7/24/2012 4:47 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[snip]
>> One big disadvantage of on-line documentation is that sometimes,
>> bits of it are hidden or not in obvious places. Hard-copy
>> documentation has the advantage of nothing being hidden. If you go
>> through the whole book, you get all of the content.
>
>I also like books.
>
>But it is not practical with something as big as the Java API.
>
>4000 types of average 5 pages = 20000 pages = 50 volumes of 400 pages
I have read the JavaScript standard. It is available as a PDF.
That has the advantages of being greppable, and being in a form that
makes sense when printed.
Is the Java documentation available that way? Printing one, two,
three 400-page books would help. I would pick the stuff that I would
frequently need and then bits of other special stuff as I ran across
it.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 20:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <500f38d5$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16323 |
On 7/24/2012 7:35 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:42:36 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> > wrote: > >> On 7/24/2012 4:47 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > [snip] > >>> One big disadvantage of on-line documentation is that sometimes, >>> bits of it are hidden or not in obvious places. Hard-copy >>> documentation has the advantage of nothing being hidden. If you go >>> through the whole book, you get all of the content. >> >> I also like books. >> >> But it is not practical with something as big as the Java API. >> >> 4000 types of average 5 pages = 20000 pages = 50 volumes of 400 pages > > I have read the JavaScript standard. It is available as a PDF. > That has the advantages of being greppable, and being in a form that > makes sense when printed. > > Is the Java documentation available that way? Printing one, two, > three 400-page books would help. I would pick the stuff that I would > frequently need and then bits of other special stuff as I ran across > it. JLS and JVM spec are available as PDF: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/ Also coding convention: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconv-138413.html I am not aware of the Java API being available as PDF. And as I indicated above then I believe the main reason is size. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 17:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <junf1o$8vp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16323 |
On 7/24/2012 4:35 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > I have read the JavaScript standard. It is available as a PDF. > That has the advantages of being greppable, and being in a form that > makes sense when printed. <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html#docs> But that isn't grepable in the same way that a single document is. However the online version is pretty grepable, if you use Google.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hga01810ffp5v7msmhr3foamuuvcr4rf2b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16326 |
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:36:07 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote:
>On 7/24/2012 4:35 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> I have read the JavaScript standard. It is available as a PDF.
>> That has the advantages of being greppable, and being in a form that
>> makes sense when printed.
><http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html#docs>
>But that isn't grepable in the same way that a single document is.
>However the online version is pretty grepable, if you use Google.
That single document feature is very useful when looking for
something. Having to repeat one's search parameters multiple times
gets old fast.
The June 2011 edition (version 5.1) of the ECMAScript standard
(what I have been calling the JavaScript standard) is 258 pages long
and is easily searchable. Not surprisingly, I have done so many
times.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jupc37$evj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16352 |
On 7/25/2012 10:22 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > That single document feature is very useful when looking for > something. Having to repeat one's search parameters multiple times > gets old fast. And repeating, because you seem myopic in your quest for a single document, that Google obviates the need for repeating search parameters. As does "grep -r" for that matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bm018phc5meqgkue8gid7fh5rg74s4lts@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16355 |
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:57:59 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote:
>On 7/25/2012 10:22 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>> That single document feature is very useful when looking for
>> something. Having to repeat one's search parameters multiple times
>> gets old fast.
>And repeating, because you seem myopic in your quest for a single
>document, that Google obviates the need for repeating search parameters.
Nah, it just makes it easier to have something that meets most of
my needs. I can refine from there given a good base.
> As does "grep -r" for that matter.
Instead, Google requires that you dig through a lot of dross.
That also gets old fast. C'mon, admit it. Don't you see a lot of
nonsense about Java (or pretty much anything) on the Web? If one is
starting out in an area, it can be hard to tell which is which.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <juplqj$g1g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16360 |
On 7/25/2012 1:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > Instead, Google requires that you dig through a lot of dross. > That also gets old fast. C'mon, admit it. Don't you see a lot of > nonsense about Java (or pretty much anything) on the Web? No, seriously, I don't. Oracle's APIs are always the first thing that comes up when I search. I don't know if Google tailors its results and knows what I'm looking for, but that's what I get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fp018ltnuninsjf0h0jof72uduigb13ut@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16361 |
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:44:04 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote:
>On 7/25/2012 1:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>> Instead, Google requires that you dig through a lot of dross.
>> That also gets old fast. C'mon, admit it. Don't you see a lot of
>> nonsense about Java (or pretty much anything) on the Web?
>No, seriously, I don't. Oracle's APIs are always the first thing that
>comes up when I search. I don't know if Google tailors its results and
>knows what I'm looking for, but that's what I get.
I like to think that my Google-fu is reasonably good, but
sometimes, I find it nearly impossible to find what I am looking for.
How about an example of how to connect from a browser (IE 9 for
now) to an SQL Server database without using ActiveX? I have looked
for this and found general answers but nothing so useful as an actual
example of how to make it go. Given the example, I could probably
handle the rest. Unable to find one, I have given up on it.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5010773d$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16363 |
On 7/25/2012 5:34 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:44:04 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote: > >> On 7/25/2012 1:41 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> >>> Instead, Google requires that you dig through a lot of dross. >>> That also gets old fast. C'mon, admit it. Don't you see a lot of >>> nonsense about Java (or pretty much anything) on the Web? > >> No, seriously, I don't. Oracle's APIs are always the first thing that >> comes up when I search. I don't know if Google tailors its results and >> knows what I'm looking for, but that's what I get. > > I like to think that my Google-fu is reasonably good, but > sometimes, I find it nearly impossible to find what I am looking for. > > How about an example of how to connect from a browser (IE 9 for > now) to an SQL Server database without using ActiveX? I have looked > for this and found general answers but nothing so useful as an actual > example of how to make it go. Given the example, I could probably > handle the rest. Unable to find one, I have given up on it. That does not seem to relate to Java API. I am sure googling of "java database" will give you plenty of relevant hits. You can do either: browser running Java applet--------database or: browser--------Java web app-----------database That the last is better than the first is about good software design - and that is difficult close to impossible to learn by googling. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web