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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74v018lbotri1buhnl2tho84mik73n7go2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16369 |
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:46:20 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
>On 7/25/2012 5:34 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[snip]
>> 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 know that it does not relate to Java. I gave it as an example
of there being a lot of dross on the Web.
[snip]
>That the last is better than the first is about good
>software design - and that is difficult close to
>impossible to learn by googling.
Sure, but many times, just getting that first bit has made all
the difference. Then, the rest of it becomes clearer or even fairly
obvious.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-30 14:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2a80a380969e7d9989728@202.177.16.121> |
| In reply to | #16369 |
In article <5010773d$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk says... > 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 Since Webstart came to life, the last one is not really clearly better. 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 | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-30 19:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <50171efa$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16611 |
On 7/30/2012 8:59 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote: > In article <5010773d$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk > says... > >> 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 > > Since Webstart came to life, the last one is not really clearly better. ???? What does traditional applet versus web start help on the fact that it is not good to have databases directly exposed and that the database password can be easily found by decompiling the Java code? Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-02 23:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2a85126de12536f298972d@202.177.16.121> |
| In reply to | #16696 |
In article <50171efa$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk says... > > On 7/30/2012 8:59 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote: > > In article <5010773d$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk > > says... > > > >> 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 > > > > Since Webstart came to life, the last one is not really clearly better. > > ???? > > What does traditional applet versus web start help on the fact > that it is not good to have databases directly exposed and that > the database password can be easily found by decompiling the > Java code? Why do you think a Java Applet/Webstart application forces you to expose the database? 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 | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-02 18:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <501affac$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #17006 |
On 8/2/2012 5:41 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote: > In article <50171efa$0$289$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk > says... >> >> On 7/30/2012 8:59 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote: >>> In article <5010773d$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk >>> says... >>> >>>> You can do either: >>>> browser running Java applet--------database >>>> or: >>>> browser--------Java web app-----------database >>>> >>>> That the last is better than the first is about good >>>> software design >>> >>> Since Webstart came to life, the last one is not really clearly better. >> >> ???? >> >> What does traditional applet versus web start help on the fact >> that it is not good to have databases directly exposed and that >> the database password can be easily found by decompiling the >> Java code? > > Why do you think a Java Applet/Webstart application forces you to expose > the database? That is the scenario described in the discussion you commented on. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 15:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <juptek$ucu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16363 |
On 7/25/2012 2:34 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > How about an example of how to connect from a browser (IE 9 for > now) to an SQL Server database without using ActiveX? You understand we're talking Java here right? You asked if the Java API and specification was available for download. I gave you a link showing where to get it, and also mentioned that Google was superior for searching than "greping." Sometimes I wonder if people here are actually reading the threads or even their own posts, or just trolling on auto-pilot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 16:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97v01898vpkh6c37md6o8tao7kk7e6ff71@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16371 |
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:12 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote:
>On 7/25/2012 2:34 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> How about an example of how to connect from a browser (IE 9 for
>> now) to an SQL Server database without using ActiveX?
>You understand we're talking Java here right? You asked if the Java API
And other things.
>and specification was available for download. I gave you a link showing
>where to get it, and also mentioned that Google was superior for
>searching than "greping."
And I mentioned problems I have run into in doing that. The
dross.
>Sometimes I wonder if people here are actually reading the threads or
>even their own posts, or just trolling on auto-pilot.
I gave an example of how the Web has a lot of dross. That it was
not connected to Java is irrelevant to my point. I program in more
than one language.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 19:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5010817e$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16374 |
On 7/25/2012 7:11 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:12 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote: > >> On 7/25/2012 2:34 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> How about an example of how to connect from a browser (IE 9 for >>> now) to an SQL Server database without using ActiveX? > >> You understand we're talking Java here right? You asked if the Java API > > And other things. > >> and specification was available for download. I gave you a link showing >> where to get it, and also mentioned that Google was superior for >> searching than "greping." > > And I mentioned problems I have run into in doing that. The > dross. > >> Sometimes I wonder if people here are actually reading the threads or >> even their own posts, or just trolling on auto-pilot. > > I gave an example of how the Web has a lot of dross. That it was > not connected to Java is irrelevant to my point. I program in more > than one language. You replied to a post suggesting that Google could find things in the Java API with the browser-DB example. Nobody was claiming that you could find out everything via Google. Proving that you can't find out everything via Google is irrelevant for the tread. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 18:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <501077de$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16352 |
On 7/25/2012 1:22 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > 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. The equivalent of that is more JLS which is only 670 pages as PDF. JavaScript does not come with a library of Java size. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bav018ls2qai2r8n8lter4k795jub0ahe0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16370 |
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:49:02 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
>On 7/25/2012 1:22 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[snip]
>> 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.
>
>The equivalent of that is more JLS which is only 670 pages
>as PDF.
>
>JavaScript does not come with a library of Java size.
I find that a good start makes things considerably easier. I do
not need the whole thing at once.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-26 11:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a7chacFoblU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16265 |
On 23.07.2012 22:53, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:11:29 +0200, Robert Klemme > <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Hmmm. I can't say I was really lacking that much. In which areas do >> you see deficiencies? Or: what would you add? > > I would add the following. The square-bracketed end notes give > my rationale. > > Why would one use this class? [If I am a newbie, I may not > know.] I do not think class documentation is responsible to cover this; actually I'd consider it rather harmful than helpful. If one is new to programming it's better to have proper introductory material in a narrative style. That should explain what the difference between a O(n), O(log(n)) and O(1) access time is. That information *is* given in class documentation. > How is this class related to others? What other classes would be > used with this class, and why? [What is the structure of classes? > What is their interrelation?] That can be pretty good extracted from the hyperlinking of method arguments, return types and the "Use" section and following to implemented interfaces and then down to implementing classes. > What does this class have in common with other classes as to its > properties, methods, exceptions, etc.? Some classes are very similar > -- I am thinking of readers and writers -- but address slightly > different things. I would like to see something like "Readers > generally have the following properties, methods, exceptions, etc.:" > followed by the details of the in-common characteristics. If a class > broke with the commonality, that should be documented in the class: > "<foo> breaks with <method> doing <doesthis1>, instead doing > <doesthis2>." [I do not want to have to read the same thing several > times and possibly miss the time or times when a class behaves > differently] I am getting the impression that what you are asking is customization to your specific reading habits. Others might be better off with the current state of affairs. At least I do not see a reasoning why that should be better as the general case. > For each property, WHAT ARE THEIR VALID VALUES? (Giving just the > property name is inexcusable.) [I should not have to guess. A name > is not documentation.] Whether passing null is allowed or not is probably one of the more frequent omissions of JavaDoc, I agree. > For each method, what are the parameters and the return value, > AND WHAT ARE THEIR VALID VALUES? (Giving just the parameter name or > return type is inexcusable.) Give at least one non-trivial example of > its use including what the correct result is. [I should not have to > guess. A name is not documentation. I want to be able to check that > I understand what a method does.] Often class documentation in the Java stdlib does contain usage examples. But for fundamental classes like String there are so many potential use cases that you cannot really cover them all in the class doc. > If an unusual term is used in a class's documentation, define > that term. [I recall a string class having the term "subsequence" in > its documentation. Combined with no examples, it meant that I could > not follow that section at all.] Are you referring to http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/CharSequence.html ? I find that pretty comprehensive. > And this should all be very easy to find. Documentation that can > not be easily found might as well not exist. Well, modern IDE's typically link to JavaDoc and will even synthesize JavaDoc from source code (Eclipse does it when hovering over a method call or type name). > None of these points need be very long, but their absence can > severely cripple someone trying to use the class. Thank you for the list! This all can be done in JavaDoc. I thought you were missing documentation independent from individual classes and explaining concepts. I am not sure though whether I agree that the situation is as bad as your list makes it sound. For example, java.util.* is pretty well documented IMHO. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-26 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6sq218p9vfg1m2fgg5pm8sthhdot288mia@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16387 |
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:35:01 +0200, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 23.07.2012 22:53, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:11:29 +0200, Robert Klemme
>> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hmmm. I can't say I was really lacking that much. In which areas do
>>> you see deficiencies? Or: what would you add?
>>
>> I would add the following. The square-bracketed end notes give
>> my rationale.
>>
>> Why would one use this class? [If I am a newbie, I may not
>> know.]
>
>I do not think class documentation is responsible to cover this;
>actually I'd consider it rather harmful than helpful. If one is new to
I think it the most important thing. If one does not know why
one would use a class, why even bother?
I have seen this botched in intro classes where recursion is
introduced. All too often the example used is factorial which is much
more quickly and clearly solved using iteration. The student gets the
impression that it is overly complicated and never bothers with it.
[snip]
>> What does this class have in common with other classes as to its
>> properties, methods, exceptions, etc.? Some classes are very similar
>> -- I am thinking of readers and writers -- but address slightly
>> different things. I would like to see something like "Readers
>> generally have the following properties, methods, exceptions, etc.:"
>> followed by the details of the in-common characteristics. If a class
>> broke with the commonality, that should be documented in the class:
>> "<foo> breaks with <method> doing <doesthis1>, instead doing
>> <doesthis2>." [I do not want to have to read the same thing several
>> times and possibly miss the time or times when a class behaves
>> differently]
>
>I am getting the impression that what you are asking is customization to
>your specific reading habits. Others might be better off with the
>current state of affairs. At least I do not see a reasoning why that
>should be better as the general case.
No. There is a lot of material. Why shouldn't it be organised
to cut down the amount of reading? Put the common stuff together;
this is rather like a procedure in code where we do not keep the
common code separate.
>> For each property, WHAT ARE THEIR VALID VALUES? (Giving just the
>> property name is inexcusable.) [I should not have to guess. A name
>> is not documentation.]
>
>Whether passing null is allowed or not is probably one of the more
>frequent omissions of JavaDoc, I agree.
There is more than that. If parameter is an integer, is a
negative value allowed? In some contexts, it might be obvious that it
is (or is not), but in some, who knows? Documentation should answer
that.
>> For each method, what are the parameters and the return value,
>> AND WHAT ARE THEIR VALID VALUES? (Giving just the parameter name or
>> return type is inexcusable.) Give at least one non-trivial example of
>> its use including what the correct result is. [I should not have to
>> guess. A name is not documentation. I want to be able to check that
>> I understand what a method does.]
>
>Often class documentation in the Java stdlib does contain usage
>examples. But for fundamental classes like String there are so many
>potential use cases that you cannot really cover them all in the class doc.
One example of the method in use is a problem?
>> If an unusual term is used in a class's documentation, define
>> that term. [I recall a string class having the term "subsequence" in
>> its documentation. Combined with no examples, it meant that I could
>> not follow that section at all.]
>
>Are you referring to
>http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/CharSequence.html ?
>I find that pretty comprehensive.
No. Yes, that one is better.
>> And this should all be very easy to find. Documentation that can
>> not be easily found might as well not exist.
>
>Well, modern IDE's typically link to JavaDoc and will even synthesize
>JavaDoc from source code (Eclipse does it when hovering over a method
>call or type name).
>
>> None of these points need be very long, but their absence can
>> severely cripple someone trying to use the class.
>
>Thank you for the list! This all can be done in JavaDoc. I thought you
>were missing documentation independent from individual classes and
>explaining concepts.
>
>I am not sure though whether I agree that the situation is as bad as
>your list makes it sound. For example, java.util.* is pretty well
>documented IMHO.
One effect that I have noticed with things like this is that a
newbie struggles. Someone who already knows does not see a problem.
He is already past it. so it rarely gets addressed.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-27 13:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a7fbtdFuacU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16391 |
On 07/26/2012 06:16 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:35:01 +0200, Robert Klemme > <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On 23.07.2012 22:53, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:11:29 +0200, Robert Klemme >>> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Why would one use this class? [If I am a newbie, I may not >>> know.] > > I think it the most important thing. If one does not know why > one would use a class, why even bother? IMHO the class documentation is reference material which should provide the basic facts so I can decide myself whether the class is appropriate for the use case at hand or not. Learning to judge that is part of the process of learning to program. That should not be piggybacked on reference documentation. > I have seen this botched in intro classes where recursion is > introduced. All too often the example used is factorial which is much > more quickly and clearly solved using iteration. The student gets the > impression that it is overly complicated and never bothers with it. Yeah, but the cases where recursion makes the code simpler are typically more complex algorithms (backtracking for example). I suspect all methods which can be converted into a loop via tail recursion optimization are as simple as factorial. >> Often class documentation in the Java stdlib does contain usage >> examples. But for fundamental classes like String there are so many >> potential use cases that you cannot really cover them all in the class doc. > > One example of the method in use is a problem? Many methods do not make much sense alone (for example, Map's containsKey()). Then the question is where should the example be placed etc. I think we have a quite different expectation towards JavaDoc. For me it's reference material, so I expect to get formal information (allowed arguments, semantics) while you seem to be more concerned with providing information that helps learn the language and std library. I think that information is better covered in a tutorial or other type of document (maybe even a book) and it would get in your way when working with the library. Because then the introductory information easily gets in your way and you need to look longer for the important information. >> I am not sure though whether I agree that the situation is as bad as >> your list makes it sound. For example, java.util.* is pretty well >> documented IMHO. > > One effect that I have noticed with things like this is that a > newbie struggles. Someone who already knows does not see a problem. > He is already past it. so it rarely gets addressed. But if it were such a big issue for a large number of people learning Java I am pretty sure it would be addressed. So I conclude the situation cannot be as bad as you observe it. Kind regards robert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-27 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0f5185ltq34v8kg2cte3b88qt7uouhak3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16405 |
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:21:17 +0200, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 07/26/2012 06:16 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:35:01 +0200, Robert Klemme
>> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23.07.2012 22:53, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:11:29 +0200, Robert Klemme
>>>> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Why would one use this class? [If I am a newbie, I may not
>>>> know.]
>
>>
>> I think it the most important thing. If one does not know why
>> one would use a class, why even bother?
>
>IMHO the class documentation is reference material which should provide
>the basic facts so I can decide myself whether the class is appropriate
>for the use case at hand or not. Learning to judge that is part of the
>process of learning to program. That should not be piggybacked on
>reference documentation.
That is the reference documentation! Maybe the class is better
is certain circumstances than the usual implementation. e.g. "If you
want ..., then this class may be useful."
>> I have seen this botched in intro classes where recursion is
>> introduced. All too often the example used is factorial which is much
>> more quickly and clearly solved using iteration. The student gets the
>> impression that it is overly complicated and never bothers with it.
>
>Yeah, but the cases where recursion makes the code simpler are typically
>more complex algorithms (backtracking for example). I suspect all
>methods which can be converted into a loop via tail recursion
>optimization are as simple as factorial.
My solution to that is that they should not introduce recursion
until they have a situation that would really benefit from it.
>>> Often class documentation in the Java stdlib does contain usage
>>> examples. But for fundamental classes like String there are so many
>>> potential use cases that you cannot really cover them all in the class doc.
>>
>> One example of the method in use is a problem?
>
>Many methods do not make much sense alone (for example, Map's
>containsKey()). Then the question is where should the example be placed
>etc.
For clarity. I would not mind a short example that uses several
methods in concert.
>I think we have a quite different expectation towards JavaDoc. For me
>it's reference material, so I expect to get formal information (allowed
>arguments, semantics) while you seem to be more concerned with providing
>information that helps learn the language and std library. I think that
>information is better covered in a tutorial or other type of document
>(maybe even a book) and it would get in your way when working with the
>library. Because then the introductory information easily gets in your
>way and you need to look longer for the important information.
Yes. Where is the learning reference for what these classes do?
If one does not already know the class, JavaDoc is not too useful.
>>> I am not sure though whether I agree that the situation is as bad as
>>> your list makes it sound. For example, java.util.* is pretty well
>>> documented IMHO.
>>
>> One effect that I have noticed with things like this is that a
>> newbie struggles. Someone who already knows does not see a problem.
>> He is already past it. so it rarely gets addressed.
>
>But if it were such a big issue for a large number of people learning
>Java I am pretty sure it would be addressed. So I conclude the
>situation cannot be as bad as you observe it.
It is and it isn't. Why do you think that there is such a big
market for intro texts for a language? It is interesting to me though
that, IME, the next step (mid-level) has little, and this is true in
many languages; Java is not special in this regard.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-27 21:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a7g6v6F9seU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16409 |
On 27.07.2012 18:16, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:21:17 +0200, Robert Klemme > <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On 07/26/2012 06:16 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:35:01 +0200, Robert Klemme >>> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 23.07.2012 22:53, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:11:29 +0200, Robert Klemme >>>>> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> I think it the most important thing. If one does not know why >>> one would use a class, why even bother? >> >> IMHO the class documentation is reference material which should provide >> the basic facts so I can decide myself whether the class is appropriate >> for the use case at hand or not. Learning to judge that is part of the >> process of learning to program. That should not be piggybacked on >> reference documentation. > > That is the reference documentation! Maybe the class is better > is certain circumstances than the usual implementation. e.g. "If you > want ..., then this class may be useful." But there are so many situations that you cannot expect writers of reference documentation to only cover a reasonable subset (and what is reasonable lies in the eye of the beholder of course). Class JavaDoc is reference material and should cover the formal aspects plus an informative example at times. And that's what we find in stdlib JavaDoc - sometimes better, sometimes worse. > Yes. Where is the learning reference for what these classes do? Tutorials, books, Usenet, websites.... > If one does not already know the class, JavaDoc is not too useful. I disagree: there are so many classes that you typically know many and have a pretty good idea which one to use but need to look up the details from time to time (i.e. for classes you do not use on a regular basis or for usage which deviates from what you regularly do with the class). >>> One effect that I have noticed with things like this is that a >>> newbie struggles. Someone who already knows does not see a problem. >>> He is already past it. so it rarely gets addressed. >> >> But if it were such a big issue for a large number of people learning >> Java I am pretty sure it would be addressed. So I conclude the >> situation cannot be as bad as you observe it. > > It is and it isn't. Why do you think that there is such a big > market for intro texts for a language? It is interesting to me though > that, IME, the next step (mid-level) has little, and this is true in > many languages; Java is not special in this regard. I think Sun / Oracle is doing a pretty job at providing information: there is free reference documentation for the library's API - this is mandatory. There are tutorials for various aspects - this is kind of them to provide for free. And then people can earn a living by giving courses and write books - and of course they are also free to give their knowledge away for nothing (Usenet, web sites...) but then since it does not cost a dime users have to live with some quirks. Actually Sun / Oracle was not forced to give away java, javac etc. for nothing, were they? But they did it (probably with some speculation about furthering proliferation of the language) and I think they did it OK. I think you are expecting unreasonably too much. Of course you can always ask for more for a lower price - but there's no guarantee that you get it or that many people agree it's a good idea. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-27 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddv5181iprvfm5on8r971o2a528spnptft@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16427 |
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 21:02:52 +0200, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 27.07.2012 18:16, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[snip]
>> If one does not already know the class, JavaDoc is not too useful.
>
>I disagree: there are so many classes that you typically know many and
>have a pretty good idea which one to use but need to look up the details
>from time to time (i.e. for classes you do not use on a regular basis or
>for usage which deviates from what you regularly do with the class).
Non sequitur.
Note that conditional "If one does not already know the class".
That is rather different from already having "a pretty good idea"
about it.
Getting started can be the hardest part, and JavaDoc does not
help much there. Once I get started, the rest is often quite a bit
easier. Without that start though, one can be spinning one's wheels
to little avail.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-27 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <juuv0h$joq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16409 |
On 7/27/2012 9:16 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > Yes. Where is the learning reference for what these classes do? Just to elaborate a bit on what Robert is saying, the Java Tutorials on Oracle's site provide an excellent "How-To" guide on many subjects. Java is also open source, and the source for many classes is easy to read. If you really need to burrow down into behavior, read the source. This is bordering on the intermediate-advanced level of programmer, however. > If one does not already know the class, JavaDoc is not too useful. I also disagree here and agree with Robert. If you do not know *Java* well, the Java docs are not too useful. Once you learn the language fairly well, picking useful information out of the Java docs is quick, accurate and easy. I taught myself Java, and I went through an early phase of "the Java docs are useless." They kind of are, when you are first learning. Once you "grok" Java, they're great. I can now often pick details of classes right off the better than some folks on this list who I believe to have more experience in Java than I do. There's a learning curve, but it's very manageable. > It is and it isn't. Why do you think that there is such a big > market for intro texts for a language? It is interesting to me though > that, IME, the next step (mid-level) has little, and this is true in > many languages; Java is not special in this regard. It's true of many languages because it's true, period. There's a lot of domain specific best practice, design patterns, etc. that would be totally inappropriate for the core language reference to address. In other words, welcome to the real world, kid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-27 17:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <juv05p$rar$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16405 |
On 27/07/2012 7:21 AM, Robert Klemme wrote: > On 07/26/2012 06:16 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> I have seen this botched in intro classes where recursion is >> introduced. All too often the example used is factorial which is much >> more quickly and clearly solved using iteration. The student gets the >> impression that it is overly complicated and never bothers with it. > > Yeah, but the cases where recursion makes the code simpler are typically > more complex algorithms (backtracking for example). I suspect all > methods which can be converted into a loop via tail recursion > optimization are as simple as factorial. I taught introductory programming for several years in several languages. You don't need to get as complex as backtracking. The natural places to teach recursion to introductory students are with binary tree search and quicksort, both of which can be taught in the first or second 1-semester course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-28 18:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a7iipmFpe2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16445 |
On 27.07.2012 23:11, David Lamb wrote: > I taught introductory programming for several years in several > languages. You don't need to get as complex as backtracking. The natural > places to teach recursion to introductory students are with binary tree > search and quicksort, both of which can be taught in the first or second > 1-semester course. Right. Although I'd consider Quicksort too complex as an introduction to recursion as the algorithms workings are not so easy to grasp and would distract from the concept of recursion. Tree search seems to be the most appropriate to me. Still, introducing recursion as a concept in programming does not belong into class reference documentation. This is something for a tutorial or other introductory material. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-28 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jv18pm$d0t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16448 |
On 7/28/2012 12:36 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 27.07.2012 23:11, David Lamb wrote:
>
>> I taught introductory programming for several years in several
>> languages. You don't need to get as complex as backtracking. The natural
>> places to teach recursion to introductory students are with binary tree
>> search and quicksort, both of which can be taught in the first or second
>> 1-semester course.
>
> Right. Although I'd consider Quicksort too complex as an introduction
> to recursion as the algorithms workings are not so easy to grasp and
> would distract from the concept of recursion. Tree search seems to be
> the most appropriate to me. Still, introducing recursion as a concept
> in programming does not belong into class reference documentation. This
> is something for a tutorial or other introductory material.
Tree *traversal* is a good recursion example, but I can't
think of a good a priori reason to *search* recursively in an
ordinary ordered tree. Maybe in a different sort of tree where
you sometimes pursue multiple branches instead of choosing just
one ... But that seems more complicated than Quicksort.
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web