Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #7405 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-26 20:56 -0400 |
| Last post | 2011-08-31 00:31 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-26 20:56 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-27 09:58 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> - 2011-08-27 18:02 +1000
Re: Style Police (a rant) v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2011-08-27 08:40 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 13:27 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 13:33 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-27 11:08 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 08:34 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 08:37 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 17:59 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 18:06 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 18:08 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 09:50 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 19:15 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 13:09 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 23:18 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 16:10 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-28 01:59 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 18:59 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-28 15:32 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-28 13:09 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-29 04:02 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-28 19:20 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-29 09:44 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-29 08:30 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-29 16:37 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-29 12:10 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-29 18:21 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-29 04:06 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-10 06:45 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-10 11:40 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-10 14:06 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 14:07 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:55 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:58 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-09-11 10:12 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-14 12:22 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2011-09-14 15:04 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Paul Cager <paul.cager@googlemail.com> - 2011-09-14 09:36 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 09:47 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:32 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-17 00:57 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-17 19:56 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 21:20 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-11 17:11 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-12 01:22 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 21:13 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 16:54 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-11 23:42 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:54 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 07:18 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 10:07 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 08:15 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 12:00 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 10:10 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 09:55 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-15 10:37 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_9112011@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-15 22:58 -0400
Murphy = Troll [DO NOT FEED] thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-16 00:23 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 03:26 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) un-Bent <dob@dib.dib.null> - 2011-09-16 13:02 +0000
Murphy = Troll [DO NOT FEED] thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-16 22:40 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-17 19:36 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 08:58 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-19 11:56 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 17:05 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-19 19:13 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) k00k Derbyshire spins freely "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 20:45 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) k00k Derbyshire spins freely thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-21 18:37 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 15:13 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-26 19:34 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 06:49 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 09:21 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 14:17 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-01 20:53 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 21:12 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:17 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:56 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:12 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:59 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:13 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 21:12 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-12 07:36 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:58 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:12 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 15:33 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 09:42 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-11 20:35 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 16:55 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 20:36 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-12 10:05 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 15:35 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-13 10:35 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 09:48 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 12:18 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 17:30 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:59 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Joe Attardi <jattardi@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 10:54 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-24 01:54 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-09-24 02:58 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-24 11:35 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Joe Attardi <jattardi@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 13:50 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-26 21:14 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 17:50 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-11-04 15:56 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-11-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-11-10 15:22 -0800
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 17:47 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-11-04 15:48 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> - 2011-11-05 07:58 -0500
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-11-10 15:17 -0800
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 15:17 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-27 00:50 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) tisue@cs.nwu.edu (Seth Tisue) - 2011-09-27 08:55 -0600
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:14 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:11 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:31 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 22:24 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-27 09:30 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) tisue@cs.nwu.edu (Seth Tisue) - 2011-09-27 08:57 -0600
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:38 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:36 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-09-30 15:58 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:32 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-30 21:26 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:34 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-10-01 15:51 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:18 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 16:26 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-10-01 21:25 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:23 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-05 10:01 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 08:29 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-07 17:34 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:58 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:52 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:14 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 06:42 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 07:20 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 08:46 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-12 21:03 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-09-12 20:18 +0100
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 21:20 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 13:52 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-12 00:17 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-10 21:32 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 13:27 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 11:05 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 13:23 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-11 10:04 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-11 12:45 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 16:53 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-14 12:30 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-14 20:47 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 18:06 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-15 10:06 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 11:28 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-20 07:36 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-20 13:04 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-20 20:34 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-14 22:33 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-15 13:46 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-14 21:40 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:59 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 21:25 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-08-27 14:00 +0100
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 08:42 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-27 11:58 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-28 08:21 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-08-28 18:07 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-08-29 04:20 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2011-08-29 09:11 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-29 20:50 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-30 11:27 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-30 09:36 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-30 17:51 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2011-08-30 08:51 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-08-30 09:04 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-30 09:43 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-08-31 00:31 +0200
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 13:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj7h3r7.6gl.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8172 |
Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: > On 9/20/2011 7:28 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: >> Well, yes, but .... You don't think there's pedagogical value >> in having students reinvent some fairly basic wheels? (I'm a bit >> uncertain myself -- it's hard not to think that every programmer >> should do some of these basic things *ONCE*, since otherwise there's >> some basic understanding that's lost, but then again the knowledge >> base keeps expanding, and expanding, and maybe these days it really >> is so much more important to know how to use the building blocks >> than to create them that nothing is gained by making sure you *know* >> how to create them.) > "Students, today you will build computers. At each lab bench > you'll find a pile of sand and a furnace ..." Today's cooking lesson: How to make a Wienerschnitzel: You go to the grocery, buy a package of "Wienerschnitzel with salad". At home you open the package, put the Wienerschnitzel into the microwave, put the packaged salad in a bowl and add water. All the other ingredients are already included in the package...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 20:34 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <Op9eq.38805$OO1.23618@newsfe02.iad> |
| In reply to | #8171 |
On 11-09-20 08:28 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: [ SNIP ] > > Well, yes, but .... You don't think there's pedagogical value > in having students reinvent some fairly basic wheels? (I'm a bit > uncertain myself -- it's hard not to think that every programmer > should do some of these basic things *ONCE*, since otherwise there's > some basic understanding that's lost, but then again the knowledge > base keeps expanding, and expanding, and maybe these days it really > is so much more important to know how to use the building blocks > than to create them that nothing is gained by making sure you *know* > how to create them.) > There are knowledge bases and then there are knowledge bases. In one very real sense the knowledge base that's really exploding is primarily applications. It's not fundamental knowledge. When I learn a new language, or a new version of Java EE, or how a different ECM does records management, or how a new web framework works, or the nooks and crannies of a new datastore (whether an RDBMS or NoSQL), etc etc etc, it's no different than saying that a music or film critic has to keep on learning an ever expanding corpus of songs or movies. It's knowledge, sure, but it's not fundamental. Fundamental knowledge for me, in our profession, is computer science, the best of software engineering thought, and the domain knowledge that is applicable to the businesses you serve. All the rest of it, the kind of stuff I mention a few examples of above, is just knowledge of tools and techniques. In the big scheme of things most of that stuff is ephemeral. So I'm partial to the idea that developers should still spend serious time on basics. An hour spent learning about sorting will be valuable forever; an hour spent figuring out some weirdness of Java EE App Destroyer 10.5.2.3 Fixpack 1414 may be of considerable value if it gets that application deployed in time for the release date, but the scope and lifetime of its value is pretty limited. I keep on running into situations where it's been useful/essential to obtain source and debug down into the guts of dozens of libraries - C, Perl, C++, Java, C#, you name it - that I've used in my career. Or you have to hand edit generated artifacts that are flat out wrong. Sometimes you don't have source and have to decompile, if possible. Point being, you'll never be able to rely on black box building blocks, not 100 percent of the time. To adapt old military precepts concerning intent and ability, you have to have some decent awareness of what's happening two levels down and two levels up. You'll operate 90+ percent of the time at a certain level of the technology stack, but if that is *all* you know about, then sooner or later you are going to be in trouble. AHS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-14 22:33 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <sBccq.6082$Nr5.2406@newsfe12.iad> |
| In reply to | #8017 |
On 11-09-14 09:30 AM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote: >> On 9/11/2011 11:45 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>> I agree, the problems are already more than big enough. I figure that >>> my Java-based work only, can be described as roughly 2/3 maintenance, >>> 1/3 new code, as of now and the past few years. >> And 1/3 new code is probably above industry average. > > The distinction between "new code" and "maintenance" doesn't quite cut it. Well, it cuts it for me, although maybe it's more accurate to say "new development" and "maintenance development", since maintenance usually involves new code. I don't have a problem personally distinguishing between new development and maintenance development, since I do both all the time: maintenance this spring, new at the moment, and maintenance work starting in November. If I'm fixing or improving an existing production codebase, that's maintenance; if I'm writing functionality that is not yet released that is new. > A more interesting percentage might be: maintaining one's own code versus > maintaining someone else's code. It's very heavily weighted towards the latter for me, since I have been doing consulting for a decade. Having read Eric's reply, I have to say that a majority of my maintenance time on other people's code is straight defect fixing, not enhancements. Unless the codebase is truly atrocious it's still better that I fix rather than write large-scale replacement code from scratch (usually), but a vastly preferable form of maintenance would be improvements and enhancements, not repair. > (And for "someone else's very ugly code" one could further distinguish for > whether running it through a (standard or specific) beautifier is an option.) > Not sure why you quoted the above, since I don't think anyone said anything about ugly code. For my part I can live with ugly if it's comprehensible and correct. And more often than I'd like I've had to take elegant, beautiful code written for way-above-average coders by some guy who wasn't thinking about the team, and rewrite it to be somewhat uglier just so more people could understand it and maintain it. AHS -- job creator: US Republican term for a wealthy party contributor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-15 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj740ds.6gl.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8045 |
Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> For my part I can live with ugly if it's
> comprehensible and correct.
You can safely assume, that any definition of "ugly" would boil
down to severely impact comprehensibility for anyone but the
original author.
Had the original author instead had the freedom and decided to
use ${someOtherLanguage}, then you likely wouldn't be given the
job to maintain/sanitize that code, but maybe instead to rewrite
that code from scratch in Java.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-14 21:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4e71578f$0$306$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #8017 |
On 9/14/2011 8:30 AM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote: >> On 9/11/2011 11:45 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>> I agree, the problems are already more than big enough. I figure that >>> my Java-based work only, can be described as roughly 2/3 maintenance, >>> 1/3 new code, as of now and the past few years. >> And 1/3 new code is probably above industry average. > > The distinction between "new code" and "maintenance" doesn't quite cut it. I think it was what Arved was talking about. > A more interesting percentage might be: maintaining one's own code versus > maintaining someone else's code. Maintaining one's own code is easier. But give how much software developers move around in companies, departments and roles then the percentage is not so high. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-11 10:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4e6ccce2$0$314$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #7793 |
On 9/11/2011 9:23 AM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote: >> Sure you can learn your special style, but that does not >> help much when somebody else inherits your code. >> >> Better pick a language that work the way you want to code. > > Imagining myself in the role of a future maintainer of some code, > I'd surely feel more comfortable with Java-code written in some > strange (but consistent) style, than with code written in some > non-mainstream language Xyz. But maybe that's just me... I see it otherwise. But it could be because I have an implicit assumption that developers hired to maintain code in language Xyz will know Xyz - mainstream or not mainstream. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-11 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj6q9qm.6gl.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #7801 |
Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote: > On 9/11/2011 9:23 AM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >> Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote: >>> Sure you can learn your special style, but that does not >>> help much when somebody else inherits your code. >>> Better pick a language that work the way you want to code. >> Imagining myself in the role of a future maintainer of some code, >> I'd surely feel more comfortable with Java-code written in some >> strange (but consistent) style, than with code written in some >> non-mainstream language Xyz. But maybe that's just me... > I see it otherwise. > But it could be because I have an implicit assumption that > developers hired to maintain code in language Xyz will know > Xyz - mainstream or not mainstream. Depends if the boss actually allows the original programmer to program in anything else than Java. He'd have some reason not to allow it - like the prospects of potentially having to find a successor programmer able to maintain Xyz programs, versus the rather easy task of finding a Java programmer... Otoh., I see some motivation for a programmer to switch to some Xyz language apart from improved aptness for a task: Making himself less dispensable...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-27 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108271350130.2202@urchin.earth.li> |
| In reply to | #7405 |
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Eric Sosman wrote: > In recent days I've encountered a tool called "Checkstyle," that > parses Java code and flags various departures from its baked-in rules. You mean the rules you configure? Or by 'baked-in' do you mean the default rule set? I assume you are not making the mistake of assuming that Checkstyle's rule set is not configurable. > Some of these are worthwhile [...] Some are less so That has been our experience with it too. When we added it to our integration build process, one of our guys had to spend quite a while grubbing through the rules chucking out those we didn't subscribe to. We also planned to revise the rule set as time went by and we found more problems with it, although in practice we haven't had to do that much. We also run PMD in the build process, similarly tuned: http://pmd.sourceforge.net/ We have Checkstyle set up to primarily check non-functional style rules (formatting, variable naming, and so on), and PMD to look for potential bugs, because it's better at it. Note that the authors of PMD have the good grace to recognise that some of the rules they include are controversial: http://pmd.sourceforge.net/rules/controversial.html > But the subject of this rant is its complaint that a class is "not > designed for extension." You write a perfectly ordinary class with > methods foo() and bar(), and Checkstyle throws up its hands and gibbers > that your class is "not designed for extension." Say, what? I know what this rule is getting at. Hopefully Lew will chime in at some point soon and explain it. > I wonder what this Checkstyle tool would think of the concrete, > non-final, non-empty equals(), hashCode(), clone(), toString(), and > finalize() methods of ... java.lang.Object, the one class *no* Java > program can avoid extending. If java.lang.Object is "not designed for > extension," is there any hope left for the language? Well put! tom -- My dad gave to me a MSX and magazines to read and type programs, mostly adventure games. I falling in love to the letter soap. -- clrod
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-27 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14afe60c-e1ba-4e65-a00e-19a58aea3957@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7414 |
Tom Anderson wrote: > Eric Sosman wrote: >> In recent days I've encountered a tool called "Checkstyle," that >> parses Java code and flags various departures from its baked-in rules. > > You mean the rules you configure? Or by 'baked-in' do you mean the default > rule set? > > I assume you are not making the mistake of assuming that Checkstyle's rule > set is not configurable. > >> Some of these are worthwhile [...] Some are less so > > That has been our experience with it too. ... > [snip] >> But the subject of this rant is its complaint that a class is "not >> designed for extension." You write a perfectly ordinary class with >> methods foo() and bar(), and Checkstyle throws up its hands and gibbers >> that your class is "not designed for extension." Say, what? > > I know what this rule is getting at. Hopefully Lew will chime in at some > point soon and explain it. I defer to a more expert Bloch on this: http://java.sun.com/docs/books/effective/ Item 17: Design and document for inheritance or else prohibit it The nut of this tip is that code outlives the writing of it, a much-ignored truth to the detriment of the code. If you leave a door open, someone will walk through it regardless of the danger on the other side. >> I wonder what this Checkstyle tool would think of the concrete, >> non-final, non-empty equals(), hashCode(), clone(), toString(), and >> finalize() methods of ... java.lang.Object, the one class *no* Java >> program can avoid extending. If java.lang.Object is "not designed for >> extension," is there any hope left for the language? > > Well put!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-27 11:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j3b47e$jgh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7414 |
On 8/27/2011 9:00 AM, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Eric Sosman wrote:
>
>> In recent days I've encountered a tool called "Checkstyle," that
>> parses Java code and flags various departures from its baked-in rules.
>
> You mean the rules you configure? Or by 'baked-in' do you mean the
> default rule set?
>
> I assume you are not making the mistake of assuming that Checkstyle's
> rule set is not configurable.
Yes, the rules are configurable. You can enable and disable them,
you can change triggering thresholds where it makes sense, you can
even write your own and extend the rule set to your liking. It was
not my purpose to document Checkstyle in a Usenet post. As advertised,
it was my purpose to rant.
> Note that the authors of PMD have the good grace to recognise that some
> of the rules they include are controversial:
They do, yes. It is, I suppose, the lot of every Lint to be on
the receiving end of rants like mine. People even rant at compilers
("Whaddya mean, no creating a generic array? Stupid compiler!"), so
what chance has a purposefully pickier tool to escape complaint?
It has to be said that Checkstyle's configurability is a large point
in its favor: If you dislike a rule (and if you can get your own
meatware build police to go along), you can turn it off or modify it.
Still: An occasional rant is good for the soul. YAAAARRRGGG!!!
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-28 08:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nospam-629D5F.08213728082011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #7405 |
In article <j39fdc$1hi$1@dont-email.me>, Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: > Enforcing good style is difficult. I wish the purveyors of the > enforcement tools would realize it's beyond their powers to do it > well. Such tools seem particularly useful as an adjunct to, but not a substitute for, peer review. I'm always disappointed when someone thinks they can cut corners by putting such a tool in the build system, instead of educating developers. "A Comparison of Bug Finding Tools for Java," which compares several related tools, offers a useful perspective. <http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jfoster/papers/issre04.pdf> Linked from here: <http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/publications.html> -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-28 18:07 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <J6y6q.2058$CQ4.311@newsfe09.iad> |
| In reply to | #7431 |
On 11-08-28 09:21 AM, John B. Matthews wrote: > In article <j39fdc$1hi$1@dont-email.me>, > Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: > >> Enforcing good style is difficult. I wish the purveyors of the >> enforcement tools would realize it's beyond their powers to do it >> well. > > Such tools seem particularly useful as an adjunct to, but not a > substitute for, peer review. I'm always disappointed when someone > thinks they can cut corners by putting such a tool in the build system, > instead of educating developers. +1. I've seen tools like this used as "feel-good" CI plugins more often than not. If that's all they are used for then they're not much good. As you suggest, if used with good code reviews, *and* the rules used by the tools are also reviewed and agreed ahead of time, then they are certainly helpful. I'm not talking about purely styles rules here. Granted, there are supposedly grey areas as to what's style and what's not. E.g. do we always use braces with single statements associated with looping constructs and conditionals, or not: I consider this to be a maintenance bug and hence not style - I think it's almost always possible to determine whether something is merely style, or more serious. > "A Comparison of Bug Finding Tools for Java," which compares several > related tools, offers a useful perspective. > > <http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jfoster/papers/issre04.pdf> Decent read. I agree with the view that if you're going to use tools like this at all, use at least a couple and compare/collate the findings. AHS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-29 04:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <natm57p9onig5g7fat5shbj3ruf422851b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #7405 |
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:56:40 -0400, Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > Enforcing good style is difficult. I wish the purveyors of the >enforcement tools would realize it's beyond their powers to do it well. You might look at it like this. You complain your solar calculator keyboard is malfunctioning, and your partner says "Did you remember to plug it in?". It is not meant to tell you what to do, but merely to produce an abbreviated check list. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ John Kenneth Galbraith (born: 1908-10-15 died: 2006-04-29 at age: 97)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-29 09:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lt3n57p6q0kajq97fciv3mf9gto57vc7p1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #7405 |
Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: > > In recent days I've encountered a tool called "Checkstyle," that >parses Java code and flags various departures from its baked-in rules. >Some of these are worthwhile: It will whine if you override equals() >without overriding hashCode(), it will shriek if a method's Javadoc >omits a @param or @throws, it will moan if a static final field isn't >ALL_CAPS, and so on. Some are less so: It insists that all method >parameters should be final, it forbids the ?: operator, it tut-tuts >at `x << 8' for using a "magic number." Checkstyle checks exactly what you tell it to check in the config file you tell it to use. -- Tim Slattery Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-29 20:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j3hc5i$qn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7465 |
On 8/29/2011 9:11 AM, Tim Slattery wrote:
> Eric Sosman<esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In recent days I've encountered a tool called "Checkstyle," that
>> parses Java code and flags various departures from its baked-in rules.
>> Some of these are worthwhile: It will whine if you override equals()
>> without overriding hashCode(), it will shriek if a method's Javadoc
>> omits a @param or @throws, it will moan if a static final field isn't
>> ALL_CAPS, and so on. Some are less so: It insists that all method
>> parameters should be final, it forbids the ?: operator, it tut-tuts
>> at `x<< 8' for using a "magic number."
>
> Checkstyle checks exactly what you tell it to check in the config file
> you tell it to use.
Almost. It checks exactly what somebody tells it to check in the
config file that somebody requires me to use.
To be fair to the somebodies, I have yet to test just how slavishly
they'll insist that I bow to their chosen dictates. Maybe the code that
puts Checkstyle into such a tizzy will sail through review unscathed.
Or maybe some gatekeeper will insist it "pass" Checkstyle before even
getting as far as review; I honestly don't know yet.
I'm just ranting at the absurdity of a criterion that says Object
itself is "not designed for extension."
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-30 11:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj5pi9o.6gl.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #7488 |
Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: >> Checkstyle checks exactly what you tell it to check in the config file >> you tell it to use. > Almost. It checks exactly what somebody tells it to check in the > config file that somebody requires me to use. > > [...] maybe some gatekeeper will insist it "pass" Checkstyle before even > getting as far as review; I honestly don't know yet. My dark side would motivate me to find some really obviously gross workaround that (while passing the imposed checkstyle-rules) would inevitably make the reviewers frown and complain about until they read the comment, which says that this gross workaround is only for a stupid checkstyle-rule... :-) The rule itself seems to be guided by some mantra according to which a class should either be final or abstract (except that the rule also allows for empty implementations). That Object and lots of other standard library classes don't abide by that mantra is then taken as a case for the latin proverb: "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi." I don't follow that mantra, myself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-30 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7374a39d-18a5-4b3c-b6a8-23031cb466ab@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7494 |
Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > The rule itself seems to be guided by some mantra according to which > a class should either be final or abstract (except that the rule also > allows for empty implementations). That Object and lots of other > standard library classes don't abide by that mantra is then taken > as a case for the latin proverb: "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi." > I don't follow that mantra, myself. Four leeched cows looked at Jon bon Jovi? -- Lew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-30 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj5q8p4.6gl.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #7500 |
Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote: > Andreas Leitgeb wrote: >> The rule itself seems to be guided by some mantra according to which >> a class should either be final or abstract (except that the rule also >> allows for empty implementations). That Object and lots of other >> standard library classes don't abide by that mantra is then taken >> as a case for the latin proverb: "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi." >> I don't follow that mantra, myself. > Four leeched cows looked at Jon bon Jovi? What leeches Jon bon Jovi, doesn't leech Bon jon Bovi...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-30 08:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <14np57la9gmaqmk03g1a2qt2lqritpbkvg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #7488 |
Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: > Almost. It checks exactly what somebody tells it to check in the >config file that somebody requires me to use. True. And sometimes those somebodies are quite unyielding about quite ridiculous stuff. > I'm just ranting at the absurdity of a criterion that says Object >itself is "not designed for extension." I agree with that. -- Tim Slattery Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-30 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <iImdneQ_Vv6ml8DTnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #7488 |
On 8/29/2011 5:50 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: ... > Almost. It checks exactly what somebody tells it to check in the > config file that somebody requires me to use. ... > I'm just ranting at the absurdity of a criterion that says Object > itself is "not designed for extension." > The criterion could be described better. Maybe it should be something like "needs very careful design and documentation to achieve correct extension". A big chunk of the Object API documentation, for example, discusses the rules for equals, hashCode, and the relationship between them in classes that override them. It seems to me that the best use of this type of tool for that sort of check is to prevent such things being done casually. The extra hoop-jumping for turning off the check in a class is not that big compared to the work that needs to be done to ensure correct extension. Of course, if the powers-that-be forbid turning off the check, there is a much bigger problem. Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web