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 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-23 09:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a74c3mF476U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16245 |
On 23.07.2012 04:52, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/22/2012 10:26 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> document using UML diagrams in some of my uni courses. I generally
>> did them *after* I wrote the code.
>
> Which is wrong.
Not necessarily. As long as it's finished before someone else needs to
work with the code. :-)
>> They were a time sink and did
>> not add anything to my understanding of the system.
>
> Maybe.
>
> But given that the purpose of the UML is to give other a better
> understanding of the system not so relevant.
+1
>> I can understand someone not wanting to do things that do not
>> help do the job. Avoid needless work.
>
> But before concluding about whether it helps or are useless it is
> necessary to understand why and how it is done.
Exactly. Gene makes it sound as if the whole purpose of putting UML
diagrams was the benefit of the *writer*. I rather think the writer can
make good use of UML on a whiteboard or piece of paper during design
phase. UML in documents is there to help *readers* better understand a
design.
<rant>I have seen quite a lot of documents apparently written with the
writer in mind instead of the reader ("brain dump"). That attitude
seems to be fairly common. This is unfortunate since it limits
usefulness of documents a lot.
Unfortunately that seems to be true for code as well: there seems to be
a tendency to just make things work without consideration of ease of
use. That is mostly determined by API and not internals. Programmers
(on average) seem to be more concerned with internal workings of their
classes than with the public visible and usable API.</rant>
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 | 2012-07-23 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i50r08hjiebe152pdeot546psfefk432vh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16246 |
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:17:09 +0200, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 23.07.2012 04:52, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/22/2012 10:26 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>> document using UML diagrams in some of my uni courses. I generally
>>> did them *after* I wrote the code.
>>
>> Which is wrong.
>
>Not necessarily. As long as it's finished before someone else needs to
>work with the code. :-)
Yes.
And, UML did not do me any good. UML did not help me design my
systems. Indeed, all of the fiddling about with the editor was
distracting.
There is a lot to be said for simply putting pen to ink. It is
quick, and it is amenable to change.
>>> They were a time sink and did
>>> not add anything to my understanding of the system.
>>
>> Maybe.
No, definitely the case. It is much slower to use a UML editor
than simply sketching.
>> But given that the purpose of the UML is to give other a better
>> understanding of the system not so relevant.
>
>+1
UML is hardly the only way to do so.
Have you ever used a sketch map? A good sketch can be very
useful and very quickly made.
>>> I can understand someone not wanting to do things that do not
>>> help do the job. Avoid needless work.
>>
>> But before concluding about whether it helps or are useless it is
>> necessary to understand why and how it is done.
>
>Exactly. Gene makes it sound as if the whole purpose of putting UML
>diagrams was the benefit of the *writer*. I rather think the writer can
>make good use of UML on a whiteboard or piece of paper during design
>phase. UML in documents is there to help *readers* better understand a
>design.
That is about it. Now, why can't the reader read the sketch?
Even if I have to redraw the sketch to neaten it up, that is almost
certainly faster than entering the data with a UML editor.
My big complaint with UML is that the tools to enter it are
awkward and slow to use. I prefer to avoid such tools.
My secondary one is that it tries to force-fit things into its
diagram types.
><rant>I have seen quite a lot of documents apparently written with the
>writer in mind instead of the reader ("brain dump"). That attitude
>seems to be fairly common. This is unfortunate since it limits
>usefulness of documents a lot.
>
>Unfortunately that seems to be true for code as well: there seems to be
>a tendency to just make things work without consideration of ease of
>use. That is mostly determined by API and not internals. Programmers
>(on average) seem to be more concerned with internal workings of their
>classes than with the public visible and usable API.</rant>
What rant?
I think that one of the biggest things holding us back is lack of
proper documentation.
I have been trying to find out how to communicate from browser to
SQL Server in a secure way and without using ActiveX. I finally gave
up. Sure, you can find someone pushing a solution but typically
without useful details so that you can make go yourself.
Before that, it was learning JavaScript. I ran into the case of
most books covering the basics and then stopping. The next step just
is not there.
If you want an example of imitation documentation, look at the
official documentation for Java. It has about one-third of what it
should. Were I grading it, it would get a solid D.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-23 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <juk2u8$u42$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16248 |
On 7/23/2012 10:03 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > And, UML did not do me any good. UML did not help me design my > systems. Indeed, all of the fiddling about with the editor was > distracting. > > There is a lot to be said for simply putting pen to ink. It is > quick, and it is amenable to change. > > Have you ever used a sketch map? A good sketch can be very > useful and very quickly made. Interesting. And I think you make some very valid points. However, perhaps it was merely that your tool was bad? http://yuml.me/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-23 11:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <875r08d8c2ug0v7sfp9ee5hd61nmveqctp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16249 |
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:51:00 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote:
>On 7/23/2012 10:03 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> And, UML did not do me any good. UML did not help me design my
>> systems. Indeed, all of the fiddling about with the editor was
>> distracting.
>>
>> There is a lot to be said for simply putting pen to ink. It is
>> quick, and it is amenable to change.
>> Have you ever used a sketch map? A good sketch can be very
>> useful and very quickly made.
>Interesting. And I think you make some very valid points. However,
>perhaps it was merely that your tool was bad?
Well, any such tool is going to be more fiddly than just
sketching. I understand that. I do not know that other tools would
be any easier IN THE GENERAL CASE. That stated ...
>http://yuml.me/
I tried their Web demo. Leaving aside no documentation, I did
fudge a simple diagram. The demo works for the basics. That it
appears to give reasonable output is to the good. If it had to be
adjusted, would it be difficult?
My concern would be it fitting on a page; a lot of my UML tool
fiddling had to do with that and keeping alignment, and I was forced
to do this. If a tool does this for me, then it would be good enough
for most use. My priorities are roughly:
1) Is it readable, clear, and neat?
2) Is it pretty?
3) Can the output be tweaked?
For my own use, I would usually not bother, but on a large
project, this might do the trick.
I suppose that I have been bitten badly on these high-end design
tools. One (PowerDesigner?) generates some code, but to specify
parameters for methods, one has to drill down two levels. Since the
documentation is badly fragmented, this was not a good tool to get a
quick first product with. I understand that it is also rather
expen$ive.
I hope there are better tools out there.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-23 21:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a75lv5F11vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16248 |
On 23.07.2012 19:03, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:17:09 +0200, Robert Klemme
> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> And, UML did not do me any good. UML did not help me design my
> systems. Indeed, all of the fiddling about with the editor was
> distracting.
>
> There is a lot to be said for simply putting pen to ink. It is
> quick, and it is amenable to change.
Then why did you try to use an electronic tool? I use diagramming tools
(I did mention Visio, did I?) only for creating diagrams for documents.
And it is quite fast at that. A tool that does not get in your way.
When designing it's UML on whiteboard or paper.
>>> But given that the purpose of the UML is to give other a better
>>> understanding of the system not so relevant.
>>
>> +1
>
> UML is hardly the only way to do so.
No, certainly not. I don't think anybody claimed that so far. UML does
have an advantage of being widely known and covering many important
aspects of software engineering.
> Have you ever used a sketch map? A good sketch can be very
> useful and very quickly made.
Is this some kind of specific tool or do you mean a sketch map? I am
asking because nowadays this sounds like it could be a tool's name. I
am sketching all the time - and also likely violating strict UML while
doing so. :-)
> That is about it. Now, why can't the reader read the sketch?
> Even if I have to redraw the sketch to neaten it up, that is almost
> certainly faster than entering the data with a UML editor.
That depends on the UML tool.
> My big complaint with UML is that the tools to enter it are
> awkward and slow to use. I prefer to avoid such tools.
Understandably. But I'd say there are tools which do not suffer from
this. (MagicDraw is certainly *not* one of them.)
> My secondary one is that it tries to force-fit things into its
> diagram types.
That's why I prefer a drawing tool over an UML modeling tool any time.
>> <rant>I have seen quite a lot of documents apparently written with the
>> writer in mind instead of the reader ("brain dump"). That attitude
>> seems to be fairly common. This is unfortunate since it limits
>> usefulness of documents a lot.
>>
>> Unfortunately that seems to be true for code as well: there seems to be
>> a tendency to just make things work without consideration of ease of
>> use. That is mostly determined by API and not internals. Programmers
>> (on average) seem to be more concerned with internal workings of their
>> classes than with the public visible and usable API.</rant>
>
> What rant?
Oh, isn't it ranty enough? ;-) I can write a version with explicit
language - but that won't go public. :-)
> I think that one of the biggest things holding us back is lack of
> proper documentation.
Absolutely true!
> If you want an example of imitation documentation, look at the
> official documentation for Java. It has about one-third of what it
> should. Were I grading it, it would get a solid D.
Hmmm. I can't say I was really lacking that much. In which areas do
you see deficiencies? Or: what would you add?
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 | 2012-07-23 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3qcr08lkpvcmhe0drpffhegusd6k2a1670@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16258 |
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:11:29 +0200, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 23.07.2012 19:03, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:17:09 +0200, Robert Klemme
>> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> And, UML did not do me any good. UML did not help me design my
>> systems. Indeed, all of the fiddling about with the editor was
>> distracting.
>>
>> There is a lot to be said for simply putting pen to ink. It is
>> quick, and it is amenable to change.
>
>Then why did you try to use an electronic tool? I use diagramming tools
1) I do try new things.
2) It was a requirement for coursework.
>(I did mention Visio, did I?) only for creating diagrams for documents.
> And it is quite fast at that. A tool that does not get in your way.
I have used Visio. It does get in the way. Too much for use in
designing...
>When designing it's UML on whiteboard or paper.
...as you implicitly note here.
>>>> But given that the purpose of the UML is to give other a better
>>>> understanding of the system not so relevant.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> UML is hardly the only way to do so.
>
>No, certainly not. I don't think anybody claimed that so far. UML does
>have an advantage of being widely known and covering many important
>aspects of software engineering.
Yes, as does a diagram on a paper napkin.
>> Have you ever used a sketch map? A good sketch can be very
>> useful and very quickly made.
>
>Is this some kind of specific tool or do you mean a sketch map? I am
>asking because nowadays this sounds like it could be a tool's name. I
>am sketching all the time - and also likely violating strict UML while
>doing so. :-)
Not a specific tool.
I loved the old, wide printer paper. That size was great for
diagramming, and folding it in half vertically gave a good size for
notes.
>> That is about it. Now, why can't the reader read the sketch?
>> Even if I have to redraw the sketch to neaten it up, that is almost
>> certainly faster than entering the data with a UML editor.
>
>That depends on the UML tool.
I would think that any tool would, in general, be slower than
just sketching.
>> My big complaint with UML is that the tools to enter it are
>> awkward and slow to use. I prefer to avoid such tools.
>
>Understandably. But I'd say there are tools which do not suffer from
>this. (MagicDraw is certainly *not* one of them.)
Which I did not run into, unfortunately.
>> My secondary one is that it tries to force-fit things into its
>> diagram types.
>
>That's why I prefer a drawing tool over an UML modeling tool any time.
It is nice to have the structure, but sometimes, one has to toss
it.
>>> <rant>I have seen quite a lot of documents apparently written with the
>>> writer in mind instead of the reader ("brain dump"). That attitude
>>> seems to be fairly common. This is unfortunate since it limits
>>> usefulness of documents a lot.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately that seems to be true for code as well: there seems to be
>>> a tendency to just make things work without consideration of ease of
>>> use. That is mostly determined by API and not internals. Programmers
>>> (on average) seem to be more concerned with internal workings of their
>>> classes than with the public visible and usable API.</rant>
>>
>> What rant?
>
>Oh, isn't it ranty enough? ;-) I can write a version with explicit
>language - but that won't go public. :-)
No, it is not a rant at all. It the voice of Sweet Reason. Now,
if you were to suggest that such programmeers should be hung by their
thumbs, that might be ranting. I might well still agree.
>> I think that one of the biggest things holding us back is lack of
>> proper documentation.
>
>Absolutely true!
>
>> If you want an example of imitation documentation, look at the
>> official documentation for Java. It has about one-third of what it
>> should. Were I grading it, it would get a solid D.
>
>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.]
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?]
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]
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.]
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.]
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.]
And this should all be very easy to find. Documentation that can
not be easily found might as well not exist.
None of these points need be very long, but their absence can
severely cripple someone trying to use the class.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-23 21:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nospam-764FCA.21001623072012@news.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16265 |
In article <3qcr08lkpvcmhe0drpffhegusd6k2a1670@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote: > Why would one use this class? [If I am a newbie, I may not know.] Package level documentation is a sometimes overlooked or underused location for this kind of documentation; java.util.concurrent is exemplary: it includes thumbnail sketches, rationales and a handy summary of the relevant JLS section. <http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html> -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-23 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <elvr08tu2480v0nqcfntqlksgvbgk6hkrm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16281 |
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:00:16 -0400, "John B. Matthews"
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <3qcr08lkpvcmhe0drpffhegusd6k2a1670@4ax.com>,
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote:
>
>> Why would one use this class? [If I am a newbie, I may not know.]
>
>Package level documentation is a sometimes overlooked or underused
>location for this kind of documentation; java.util.concurrent is
>exemplary: it includes thumbnail sketches, rationales and a handy
>summary of the relevant JLS section.
>
><http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html>
I made a point about it being easily found. I did not know that
this sort of stuff existed. It is weak on detail; I would prefer a
paragraph.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 15:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nospam-07B0AF.15441124072012@news.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16285 |
In article <elvr08tu2480v0nqcfntqlksgvbgk6hkrm@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:00:16 -0400, "John B. Matthews" > <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >In article <3qcr08lkpvcmhe0drpffhegusd6k2a1670@4ax.com>, > > Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote: > > > >> Why would one use this class? [If I am a newbie, I may not know.] > > > >Package level documentation is a sometimes overlooked or underused > >location for this kind of documentation; java.util.concurrent is > >exemplary: it includes thumbnail sketches, rationales and a handy > >summary of the relevant JLS section. > > > ><http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html> > > I made a point about it being easily found. I did not know that > this sort of stuff existed. It is weak on detail; I would prefer a > paragraph. 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 -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e72u08tkktirrjjij7ev2fjdac5s2ibft8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16307 |
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:44:11 -0400, "John B. Matthews"
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>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.
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.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 14:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d84a3f9-fd83-42ae-a841-629d1e420752@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16314 |
Gene Wirchenko wrote: > John B. Matthews wrote: > > [snip] > >> 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. This is also a problem with hardcopy docs. > One big disadvantage of on-line documentation is that sometimes, > bits of it are hidden or not in obvious places. Hard-copy This is also a problem with hardcopy docs. > documentation has the advantage of nothing being hidden. If you go I guess I'm less fortunate than you. The hardcopy docs I've used over the years often had references in other volumes, links to material in far-removed locations within a doc set, incomplete definitions > through the whole book, you get all of the content. So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then? Then you'd have no excuse to lack the information, according to your logic. All you have to do is go through the whole book, right? Also, you assume only one book's worth of documentation. That is optimistic in many contexts. 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. -- Lew If I'm ever stranded on a desert island with only one book, I want that book to be an unabridged dictionary because it contains every other book ever written. All you have to do is read the words out of the dictionary in the right order.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a65u08tq75s01hb9000f59thohp7u4ieee@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16318 |
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> John B. Matthews wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> 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.
>
>This is also a problem with hardcopy docs.
Sure. At least with hardcopy, I know that I have the whole book.
(Whether that is all of the books I need is a good point.)
>> One big disadvantage of on-line documentation is that sometimes,
>> bits of it are hidden or not in obvious places. Hard-copy
>
>This is also a problem with hardcopy docs.
I meant in the individual volume.
>> documentation has the advantage of nothing being hidden. If you go
>
>I guess I'm less fortunate than you. The hardcopy docs I've used over
>the years often had references in other volumes, links to material in
>far-removed locations within a doc set, incomplete definitions
The docs that I have read have tended to be one volume, so yes.
>> through the whole book, you get all of the content.
>
>So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then?
How would I get them?
>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.
>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.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 18:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <500f2352$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16319 |
On 7/24/2012 5:38 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> through the whole book, you get all of the content. >> >> So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then? > > How would I get them? Printer! :-) Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 16:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <q2cu08pq1gr5a1hgogsu9eau2gkrrmaih4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16320 |
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:36:02 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
>On 7/24/2012 5:38 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> through the whole book, you get all of the content.
>>>
>>> So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then?
>>
>> How would I get them?
>
>Printer!
>
>:-)
Is there something available other than n gazillion (OK, 20000)
Web pages?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-24 20:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <500f3bb6$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16322 |
On 7/24/2012 7:32 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:36:02 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> > wrote: > >> On 7/24/2012 5:38 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:18:15 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>>>> through the whole book, you get all of the content. >>>> >>>> So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then? >>> >>> How would I get them? >> >> Printer! >> >> :-) > > Is there something available other than n gazillion (OK, 20000) > Web pages? Obviously not anything with all the information. I have never seen a downloadable PDF with a relevant subset. I think you should go for a book. 1 minute at Amazon found: Java The Complete Reference / Herbert Schildt page 3-370 covers the Java language page 371-932 covers Java library page 933-1086 covers some advanced topics (Swing and servlets) Those 560 pages about the library could be for you. But I don't know as I have not read the book. Yes - the author is the same author that can raise the blood pressure by 40 in C feinschmeckers. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <r0a018pk8juu4pkd6nrma5cnmrjh3254ro@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16325 |
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:20:04 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
[snip]
>I think you should go for a book.
>
>1 minute at Amazon found:
>
>Java The Complete Reference / Herbert Schildt
[snip]
>Yes - the author is the same author that can raise the
>blood pressure by 40 in C feinschmeckers.
Which means I would skip it. It is useful for a reference book
to be accurate. Schildt's C books are not accurate.
Presumably, there are other Java books.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 13:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <501033d2$0$281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16350 |
On 7/25/2012 1:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:20:04 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> > wrote: > > [snip] > >> I think you should go for a book. >> >> 1 minute at Amazon found: >> >> Java The Complete Reference / Herbert Schildt > > [snip] > >> Yes - the author is the same author that can raise the >> blood pressure by 40 in C feinschmeckers. > > Which means I would skip it. It is useful for a reference book > to be accurate. Schildt's C books are not accurate. No. And if you want to discuss subtleties in the Java language with Lew, then the book is not a good choice. But for giving an overview of the most used packages/classes/methods in the Java API it may be fine. Or at least his C books are. The introduction to printf formats does not become less useful by the fact that main is declared void in the examples. > Presumably, there are other Java books. Maybe. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21m018t7f0r0qomukrrl9gn8bfrrd81p1k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16356 |
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:58:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:
>On 7/25/2012 1:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:20:04 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I think you should go for a book.
>>>
>>> 1 minute at Amazon found:
>>>
>>> Java The Complete Reference / Herbert Schildt
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Yes - the author is the same author that can raise the
>>> blood pressure by 40 in C feinschmeckers.
>>
>> Which means I would skip it. It is useful for a reference book
>> to be accurate. Schildt's C books are not accurate.
>
>No.
>
>And if you want to discuss subtleties in the Java language with Lew,
>then the book is not a good choice.
>
>But for giving an overview of the most used packages/classes/methods
>in the Java API it may be fine.
>
>Or at least his C books are. The introduction to printf formats does
>not become less useful by the fact that main is declared void in the
>examples.
It does indicate sloppiness. According to those who know C,
there are lots, excuse me, *LOTS* of errors in his books. He
published the C standard annotated, and there were many errors in his
annotations.
Minor errors of omission because of simplification can be
acceptable, but flat-out errors are not.
>> Presumably, there are other Java books.
>
>Maybe.
Good technical books are hard to find. Apart from courses --
where I did not have the choice -- I am very reluctant to buy a
technical book before having recommendations from people I trust or
having read a fair chunk of it myself.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 18:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5010763f$0$290$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16359 |
On 7/25/2012 4:38 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:58:42 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> > wrote: >> On 7/25/2012 1:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:20:04 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> >>> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> I think you should go for a book. >>>> >>>> 1 minute at Amazon found: >>>> >>>> Java The Complete Reference / Herbert Schildt >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Yes - the author is the same author that can raise the >>>> blood pressure by 40 in C feinschmeckers. >>> >>> Which means I would skip it. It is useful for a reference book >>> to be accurate. Schildt's C books are not accurate. >> >> No. >> >> And if you want to discuss subtleties in the Java language with Lew, >> then the book is not a good choice. >> >> But for giving an overview of the most used packages/classes/methods >> in the Java API it may be fine. >> >> Or at least his C books are. The introduction to printf formats does >> not become less useful by the fact that main is declared void in the >> examples. > > It does indicate sloppiness. According to those who know C, > there are lots, excuse me, *LOTS* of errors in his books. He > published the C standard annotated, and there were many errors in his > annotations. > > Minor errors of omission because of simplification can be > acceptable, but flat-out errors are not. There are hundreds of error. But how many of those has practical impact for someone that want to learn C? Not that many! >>> Presumably, there are other Java books. >> >> Maybe. > > Good technical books are hard to find. The chance of finding an author that can write 100% correct and still want to write 500+ pages about something as trivial as an API are slim. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-25 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <juot7e$i2g$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #16322 |
Gene Wirchenko wrote: > Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> Lew wrote: >>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>>>> through the whole book, you get all of the content. >>>> >>>> So why don't you have the docs in hardcopy, then? >>> >>> How would I get them? >> >> Printer! >> >> :-) > > Is there something available other than n gazillion (OK, 20000) > Web pages? You're the one who said a book would be superior to the online version! You sure changed your tune in a hurry there, sport! -- Lew Honi soit qui mal y pense. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web