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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #13793 > unrolled thread

How to develop without an IDE?

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

Contents

  How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-22 16:15 +0100
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-04-22 11:18 -0400
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2012-04-22 16:22 +0000
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 23:22 +0100
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 16:44 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 15:03 +0100
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-24 11:24 -0300
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-24 09:07 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-24 14:07 -0300
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-25 09:10 -0700
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-25 21:04 -0300
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:29 -0400
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-29 20:32 -0700
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-30 07:09 -0300
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-30 22:16 -0400
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 10:19 -0700
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 18:56 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 19:15 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 18:45 -0400
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 09:58 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 21:10 -0400
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-25 09:13 -0700
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:34 -0400
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-29 20:35 -0700
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-30 22:09 -0400
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 10:23 -0700
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 19:03 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-05-01 16:18 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 19:33 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-01 19:21 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 18:49 -0400
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 00:06 +0000
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 00:06 +0000
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 00:07 +0000
                                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 20:26 -0400
                                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 11:38 +0000
                                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-05-06 08:41 -0700
                                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 10:24 -0700
                                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 10:18 -0700
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 00:06 +0000
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-05-07 10:12 -0700
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 21:08 -0400
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-25 00:57 -0700
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 13:48 +0100
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 23:17 -0400
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-23 20:55 -0400
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Knute Johnson <nospam@knutejohnson.com> - 2012-04-22 08:41 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-22 12:36 -0400
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-22 11:35 -0700
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-22 17:21 -0400
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 16:15 -0700
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-22 19:45 -0400
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 20:28 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-22 23:57 -0500
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-04-23 02:06 -0500
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2012-04-23 02:09 -0500
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-23 01:26 -0700
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-04-23 04:36 -0500
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-23 21:11 +0200
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 23:15 +0100
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-23 15:44 -0700
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-23 21:15 -0300
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 02:33 +0100
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 18:59 -0700
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 16:43 -0700
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:44 +0100
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-04-24 20:23 +0000
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-25 09:18 -0700
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:42 -0400
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-24 08:38 +0200
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:20 +0100
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:20 +0100
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 13:36 -0700
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 02:09 +0100
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-25 07:55 +0200
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 12:18 +0100
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:37 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-04-25 01:01 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-25 09:20 -0700
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:50 -0400
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 21:17 -0400
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 23:27 -0400
                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-29 11:16 -0700
                      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-29 14:33 -0400
                        Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-29 22:48 -0700
                          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-30 22:03 -0400
                            Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-30 22:59 -0700
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-01 19:09 -0400
                              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 11:01 -0700
                                Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-02 12:21 -0700
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 14:20 -0700
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-05-02 14:41 -0700
                                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-02 16:52 -0700
                                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 18:31 -0400
                                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-05-06 14:19 -0700
                                    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-05-07 11:16 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-22 10:17 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-04-22 19:11 +0000
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 02:43 +0100
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2012-04-22 23:32 +0100
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-04-23 00:33 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-04-23 10:25 -0700
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 23:38 +0100
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-23 15:50 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-04-23 16:21 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-23 22:09 -0300
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 13:53 +0100
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 08:12 -0700
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-24 09:16 -0700
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 08:14 -0700
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 23:11 -0400
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-29 13:21 +0200
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? JussiJ <jussij@zeusedit.com> - 2012-05-07 07:19 -0700
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-23 16:46 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 12:47 +0100
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:59 -0400
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-24 09:20 -0700
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-23 21:00 -0400
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 12:36 +0100
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 20:54 -0400
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 12:05 +0100
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 23:07 -0400
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-24 09:13 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2012-04-24 14:15 -0300
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-24 12:59 -0700
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 14:24 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 14:59 -0700
                  Re: How to develop without an IDE? markspace <-@.> - 2012-04-24 17:19 -0700
                Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-24 17:12 -0700
          Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-24 21:00 -0400
            Re: How to develop without an IDE? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2012-04-26 02:17 +1000
              Re: How to develop without an IDE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-04-28 22:24 -0400
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-24 10:02 -0700
    Re: How to develop without an IDE? sony.gupta32@yahoo.co.uk - 2012-08-30 02:29 -0700
      Re: How to develop without an IDE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-08-30 19:58 +0000
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 13:16 -0700
        Re: How to develop without an IDE? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-09-02 14:04 -0700

Page 1 of 7  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#13793 — How to develop without an IDE?

Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without 
relying on an IDE?  If it is, where can I find any information on how to set 
up this sort of project?  

Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single makefile.


Thanks in advance,
Rui Maciel

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13795

On 22/04/2012 11:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without
> relying on an IDE?  If it is, where can I find any information on how to set
> up this sort of project?
>
> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single makefile.

I've always used a combination of Emacs and make. Given your "single 
makefile" question, though, I suspect you may have more sophisticated 
needs than I do. Care to elaborate?

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

#13798

David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> On 22/04/2012 11:15 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> Is it possible to set up a Java project so that it can be built without
>> relying on an IDE?  If it is, where can I find any information on how to set
>> up this sort of project?
>> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single makefile.
> I've always used a combination of Emacs and make. Given your "single 
> makefile" question, though, I suspect you may have more sophisticated 
> needs than I do. Care to elaborate?

Not sure if I clarify the OP, or "hijack" his thread, but
suppose you created a working environment in eclipse consisting
of a couple of projects, then what tools are there to create
e.g. an "ant" or "maven"-script from eclipse's own project-
control files, that would allow a headless machine to build
a runnable jar-file with all project-dependencies just like
eclipse does?
 
Even if the OP didn't mean that, I'd still like to know - so
much for hijacking ;)

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

#13825

David Lamb wrote:

> I've always used a combination of Emacs and make. Given your "single
> makefile" question, though, I suspect you may have more sophisticated
> needs than I do. Care to elaborate?

There is nothing sophisticated in my needs.  The only reason I mentioned 
makefiles is that I'm already familiar with them.  I would prefer to develop 
a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by 
being forced to use another tool.


Rui Maciel

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

#13832

Rui Maciel wrote:
> I would prefer to develop 
> a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by 
> being forced to use another tool.

The sound of the career death knells tolling.

-- 
Lew

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

#13849

Lew wrote:

> Rui Maciel wrote:
>> I would prefer to develop
>> a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by
>> being forced to use another tool.
> 
> The sound of the career death knells tolling.

You are assuming that everyone's career depends on how well they are able to 
manually set up an ant build script to build a Java project.  That's a bad 
assumption.  I would bet that a significant number of people who write Java 
code for a living never bothered to manually tweak an ant build script, let 
alone took the time to learn that tool.


Rui Maciel

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

#13850

On 12-04-24 11:03 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Lew wrote:
> 
>> Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> I would prefer to develop
>>> a skill which I already have than being forced to start from scratch by
>>> being forced to use another tool.
>>
>> The sound of the career death knells tolling.
> 
> You are assuming that everyone's career depends on how well they are able to 
> manually set up an ant build script to build a Java project.  That's a bad 
> assumption.  I would bet that a significant number of people who write Java 
> code for a living never bothered to manually tweak an ant build script, let 
> alone took the time to learn that tool.
> 
> Rui Maciel

Like I alluded to in another post in this thread, building with IDE
build systems is a common method along with Ant and Maven. I've worked
at any number of sites where a JAR/WAR/EAR built by an IDE is a
deliverable from a developer to a deployer. There's nothing evil or
shoddy about that methodology, actually...if you don't trust your IDE
build system to produce a correct artifact then why are you using the IDE?

I've also worked at quite a few client sites where developers doing
_development_ don't bother with Ant or Maven, but for formal testing and
production deployments then a CI system with Ant scripts is used. This
defeats the purpose of CI in the first place (in such a shop the CI is
only pointed at source control branches that the developers don't
directly commit to, and the CI build is manually triggered), but it's
not uncommon.

In both of these scenarios there are very few people who write or edit
Ant build scripts, true. But I've also noticed that the majority of Java
developers in both scenarios are aware of Ant. Over the course of time,
as maintenance needs to be done on Ant build scripts, or new ones need
to be written, or a build/deployment scenario calls for something more
than an IDE build, a lot of these developers do end up doing _some_ work
with Ant. Sure, it's infrequent and maybe trivial, but it's an accepted
tool.

A decent Java developer has heard of Ant and has some idea of how it
works. Maybe they've done some simple experiments with it. Even if
they've never had to write an Ant build script on the job they know that
they may be called on at any time to do it.

I'll tell you what no Java developer's career depends on: being able to
write a makefile to build a Java project.

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

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

#13855

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:14 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
<asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>I'll tell you what no Java developer's career depends on: being able to
>write a makefile to build a Java project.

     Does someone's career depend on being able to use Ant?  If it
does, then why can he not simply pick it up when he needs it?

     I prefer to learn to use tools that will be of use to me in
preference to those that only might.  There is so much software out
there that I have to budget my learning time to items which will give
me a return.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#13861

On 12-04-24 01:07 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:14 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> I'll tell you what no Java developer's career depends on: being able to
>> write a makefile to build a Java project.
> 
>      Does someone's career depend on being able to use Ant?  If it
> does, then why can he not simply pick it up when he needs it?
> 
>      I prefer to learn to use tools that will be of use to me in
> preference to those that only might.  There is so much software out
> there that I have to budget my learning time to items which will give
> me a return.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko

Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
professional development.

I have worked with intermediate Java developers - people who have used
basically nothing but Java in their entire career - who don't know Ant,
don't know Maven, don't know Ivy, don't know Hudson/Jenkins or any other
CI system, only know JUnit - sort of - out of all the available test
frameworks, aren't up to speed on any Java API except for the ones that
they've had to use for work. You then come to find out that they barely
know XML: no knowledge (or very deficient knowledge) of XSLT or XPath,
for example. You come to find out that they don't know Powershell on
Windows, bash or sh or ksh on UNIX, or even DOS-type batch files. They
have only superficial knowledge of regular expressions.

The list goes on and on, and I've worked with plenty of intermediate
(and some senior) developers who have a poor grasp of *everything* I
just listed. And more.

So is not knowing Ant a kiss of death for some Java developer's career?
Not by itself, probably not. But it's, in my experience, a strong
indicator that they've probably neglected whole swathes of stuff they
should be conversant with.

I have a great deal of tolerance for someone who has to learn something
unexpected. We all have to do that on occasion. I have considerably less
tolerance for an intermediate or senior developer who is _routinely_
having to "pick up" skills just when they need it. They're doing it on
company time and client time.

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

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

#13905

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:48 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
<asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
>I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
>a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
>at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
>professional development.

     Given that there are so many tools out there, I would not take
such an attitude.  I *would* want to see that the person had done
something adequate.

>I have worked with intermediate Java developers - people who have used
>basically nothing but Java in their entire career - who don't know Ant,
>don't know Maven, don't know Ivy, don't know Hudson/Jenkins or any other
>CI system, only know JUnit - sort of - out of all the available test
>frameworks, aren't up to speed on any Java API except for the ones that
>they've had to use for work. You then come to find out that they barely
>know XML: no knowledge (or very deficient knowledge) of XSLT or XPath,
>for example. You come to find out that they don't know Powershell on
>Windows, bash or sh or ksh on UNIX, or even DOS-type batch files. They
>have only superficial knowledge of regular expressions.

     That is not the situation I was referring to.  I mean someone who
does know the language well, can produce, but just has not worked with
the particular tool in question.

[snip]

>I have a great deal of tolerance for someone who has to learn something
>unexpected. We all have to do that on occasion. I have considerably less
>tolerance for an intermediate or senior developer who is _routinely_
>having to "pick up" skills just when they need it. They're doing it on
>company time and client time.

     But we are almost always doing that.  Determining what is needed
is learning just in time.  That might entail having to dig into the
libraries some more, for example.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#13912

On 12-04-25 01:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:48 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
>> I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
>> a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
>> at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
>> professional development.
> 
>      Given that there are so many tools out there, I would not take
> such an attitude.  I *would* want to see that the person had done
> something adequate.

From my standpoint that includes self-motivated professional
development. If I see a guy who only ever picked up skills that his
employers demanded of him, and only when they required those skills and
not before, I am not impressed by his motivation.

>> I have worked with intermediate Java developers - people who have used
>> basically nothing but Java in their entire career - who don't know Ant,
>> don't know Maven, don't know Ivy, don't know Hudson/Jenkins or any other
>> CI system, only know JUnit - sort of - out of all the available test
>> frameworks, aren't up to speed on any Java API except for the ones that
>> they've had to use for work. You then come to find out that they barely
>> know XML: no knowledge (or very deficient knowledge) of XSLT or XPath,
>> for example. You come to find out that they don't know Powershell on
>> Windows, bash or sh or ksh on UNIX, or even DOS-type batch files. They
>> have only superficial knowledge of regular expressions.
> 
>      That is not the situation I was referring to.  I mean someone who
> does know the language well, can produce, but just has not worked with
> the particular tool in question.

Here's the thing, though, Gene. Once a language (or languages) have been
picked, there are almost always only a very small number of common
choices for building. With Java the triad of IDE build system, Ant and
Maven covers a large majority of non-trivial builds. This is simply fact.

I don't expect that a Java programmer has necessarily been required to
use Ant or Maven professionally. I _do_ expect that before they are ever
called upon to use a *common* Java build tool that they use their own
time to learn it well enough that they don't waste an employer's or
customer's time on picking up a basic skill.

We're not talking about a niche tool here.

> [snip]
> 
>> I have a great deal of tolerance for someone who has to learn something
>> unexpected. We all have to do that on occasion. I have considerably less
>> tolerance for an intermediate or senior developer who is _routinely_
>> having to "pick up" skills just when they need it. They're doing it on
>> company time and client time.
> 
>      But we are almost always doing that.  Determining what is needed
> is learning just in time.  That might entail having to dig into the
> libraries some more, for example.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko

Of course we do, and sometimes there is a grey area as to what you can
reasonably expect a developer to anticipate. But often there's not.

Let me give you an example. Java 7 has been the current release for some
time now. I doubt that the majority of Java developers use it
professionally yet. But do you think there could be any excuse for a
professional Java programmer to know nothing about what's new in Java 7,
as of right now? Do you think it would be OK for them to say that
they'll learn Java 7 on customer time when the need arises?

I don't think that's OK.

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

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

#13995

On 4/25/2012 12:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:48 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>  wrote:
>> Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
>> I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
>> a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
>> at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
>> professional development.
>
>       Given that there are so many tools out there, I would not take
> such an attitude.

You should.

You need to distinguish between any tool and tools that are very
widely used.

It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
is a problem.

Arne

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

#14046

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:29:45 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:

>On 4/25/2012 12:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:48 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
>> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>  wrote:
>>> Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
>>> I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
>>> a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
>>> at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
>>> professional development.
>>
>>       Given that there are so many tools out there, I would not take
>> such an attitude.
>
>You should.
>
>You need to distinguish between any tool and tools that are very
>widely used.

     Very widely used does not mean everywhere.  I would be curious as
to why he does not know the tool.  For al I know, it might be that the
unusual tools worked better than the usual tools on the projects that
the person had worked on.  Or maybe, he just had no choice in the
matter.

>It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
>but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
>is a problem.

     So the 50% to 70% who do not use a tool should still know it?
Rather a waste of time.

     I am more interested in the reaction to "We use <tool> here."'

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#14053

On 12-04-30 12:32 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:29:45 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/25/2012 12:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:48 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
>>> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>  wrote:
>>>> Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
>>>> I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
>>>> a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
>>>> at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
>>>> professional development.
>>>
>>>       Given that there are so many tools out there, I would not take
>>> such an attitude.
>>
>> You should.
>>
>> You need to distinguish between any tool and tools that are very
>> widely used.
> 
>      Very widely used does not mean everywhere.  I would be curious as
> to why he does not know the tool.  For al I know, it might be that the
> unusual tools worked better than the usual tools on the projects that
> the person had worked on.  Or maybe, he just had no choice in the
> matter.
> 
>> It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
>> but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
>> is a problem.
> 
>      So the 50% to 70% who do not use a tool should still know it?
> Rather a waste of time.

I don't think it is, not in this case. There are few Java build tools:
it really comes down to command line, IDE, Ant and Maven. Developers
should understand C.L., so we are really talking about whether they
should know all of Ant, Maven and the build methodology for at least one
IDE.

If they use an IDE at all they'll know how to build in it, that's taken
care of. So what about Ant and/or Maven?

If they have any kind of build automation, and ideally a CI system, then
a build system like Ant or Maven is attractive. And they _should_ have
CI triggered off scheduling and/or commits, so it all ties together.

If they think they'll switch IDEs, or team members use different IDEs,
or they simply don't want to tie builds to an IDE, then Ant or Maven are
also attractive.

Over the course of a few years any decent developer can try at least one
realistic Ant buildfile for a project, and a POM for Maven for the same
or different project. It's maybe a few days' worth of hours, and once
you've learnt the fundamentals of both systems you're better prepared to
assess which one to use in the context of project builds in a larger CI
system.

If you know the basics of all the major Java build systems then you are
seriously better placed to decide which one should be used for a given
situation. If you don't have that knowledge you may as well keep your
mouth shut during build discussions. As senior as you might be, it'll be
*you* that's the waste of time.

You could just ignore almost all of that. In which case, sooner or later
as a senior or intermediate Java developer you'll end up in a new
company or in a new project where Ant or Maven is used. If I am the
technical guy in charge of you in that new environment and I find out
you're clueless about And and Maven *and* you've got 5 or 10 years in
the biz with most of that being Java, you'd best hope you're not on your
probationary period.

>      I am more interested in the reaction to "We use <tool> here."'

So would I be. And you know something, if we say "we use Ant here", and
someone gets pissy because they don't know Ant and prefer Maven, I'm
shutting them out - they are getting told in no uncertain terms that
they are already making themselves look bad, and that they'd best be
busy on their own time learning Ant.

If on the other hand the new guy says, when learning that "we use Ant
here", that he knows both Ant and Maven well, and makes a reasoned
argument that he should continue to use Maven (Ant->Maven and Maven->Ant
conversions aren't that grotesque), and even that maybe *all of us*
should switch to Maven, I'll listen. I'll listen because he's bothered
to learn his tools.

> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko

AHS
-- 
A fly was very close to being called a "land," cause that's what they do
half the time.
-- Mitch Hedberg

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

#14067

On 4/29/2012 11:32 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:29:45 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2012 12:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:48 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
>>> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>   wrote:
>>>> Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
>>>> I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
>>>> a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
>>>> at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
>>>> professional development.
>>>
>>>        Given that there are so many tools out there, I would not take
>>> such an attitude.
>>
>> You should.
>>
>> You need to distinguish between any tool and tools that are very
>> widely used.
>
>       Very widely used does not mean everywhere.  I would be curious as
> to why he does not know the tool.  For al I know, it might be that the
> unusual tools worked better than the usual tools on the projects that
> the person had worked on.  Or maybe, he just had no choice in the
> matter.

Who would hire somebody that only know about a very specific and highly
unusual environment?

>
>> It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
>> but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
>> is a problem.
>
>       So the 50% to 70% who do not use a tool should still know it?
> Rather a waste of time.

Where do you get "50% to 70% who do not use a tool" from?

With 30%-50% usage for both ant and Maven that sounds impossible.

Arne

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

#14082

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:16:47 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:

>On 4/29/2012 11:32 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:29:45 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/2012 12:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:48 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
>>>> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>   wrote:
>>>>> Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
>>>>> I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
>>>>> a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
>>>>> at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
>>>>> professional development.
>>>>
>>>>        Given that there are so many tools out there, I would not take
>>>> such an attitude.
>>>
>>> You should.
>>>
>>> You need to distinguish between any tool and tools that are very
>>> widely used.
>>
>>       Very widely used does not mean everywhere.  I would be curious as
>> to why he does not know the tool.  For al I know, it might be that the
>> unusual tools worked better than the usual tools on the projects that
>> the person had worked on.  Or maybe, he just had no choice in the
>> matter.
>
>Who would hire somebody that only know about a very specific and highly
>unusual environment?

     You keep putting twists in your responses.  I did not say "only";
you have just added it.

>>> It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
>>> but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
>>> is a problem.
>>
>>       So the 50% to 70% who do not use a tool should still know it?
>> Rather a waste of time.
>
>Where do you get "50% to 70% who do not use a tool" from?

     Simple negation.  If 30% to 50% of all Java developers use
certain tools, then 100%-30% to 100%-50% (= 70% to 50% which
normalises to 50% to 70%) do not.

>With 30%-50% usage for both ant and Maven that sounds impossible.

  1) Overlap.  Some use both.

  2) It was your figure.  Perhaps, you got it wrong.  This is not
normally a big deal, but when you keep hammering on a point, it would
be nice if you had your facts straight.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#14108

On 5/1/2012 1:19 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:16:47 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/2012 11:32 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:29:45 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/2012 12:10 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:48 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
>>>>> <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>    wrote:
>>>>>> Does someone's career - let's say current job - *depend* on knowing Ant?
>>>>>> I doubt it, not in and of itself. But if I had someone working for me as
>>>>>> a Java developer, unless they were an absolute newbie I'd look askance
>>>>>> at them not knowing certain things by a certain point in their
>>>>>> professional development.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Given that there are so many tools out there, I would not take
>>>>> such an attitude.
>>>>
>>>> You should.
>>>>
>>>> You need to distinguish between any tool and tools that are very
>>>> widely used.
>>>
>>>        Very widely used does not mean everywhere.  I would be curious as
>>> to why he does not know the tool.  For al I know, it might be that the
>>> unusual tools worked better than the usual tools on the projects that
>>> the person had worked on.  Or maybe, he just had no choice in the
>>> matter.
>>
>> Who would hire somebody that only know about a very specific and highly
>> unusual environment?
>
>       You keep putting twists in your responses.  I did not say "only";
> you have just added it.

Yes.

Because I assume that is what you meant.

But let us get it clarified. Do you mean:
A) developers should learn the common tools (ant and maven for Java build)
B) it is fine developers with developer only knowing less used tools
?

>>>> It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
>>>> but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
>>>> is a problem.
>>>
>>>        So the 50% to 70% who do not use a tool should still know it?
>>> Rather a waste of time.
>>
>> Where do you get "50% to 70% who do not use a tool" from?
>
>       Simple negation.  If 30% to 50% of all Java developers use
> certain tools, then 100%-30% to 100%-50% (= 70% to 50% which
> normalises to 50% to 70%) do not.

It is 30-50% each.

>> With 30%-50% usage for both ant and Maven that sounds impossible.
>
>    1) Overlap.  Some use both.

Your 50-70 assumes perfect overlap.

That is certainly not the case.

And the survey in question (Eclipse 2011) was asking about typical
build system, so the overlap must be very small.

>    2) It was your figure.  Perhaps, you got it wrong.  This is not
> normally a big deal, but when you keep hammering on a point, it would
> be nice if you had your facts straight.

What facts are not straight?

Arne

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

#14121

On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:56:51 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:

>On 5/1/2012 1:19 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:16:47 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
>> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Who would hire somebody that only know about a very specific and highly
>>> unusual environment?
>>
>>       You keep putting twists in your responses.  I did not say "only";
>> you have just added it.
>
>Yes.
>
>Because I assume that is what you meant.

     How about checking instead of putting curves in?

>But let us get it clarified. Do you mean:
>A) developers should learn the common tools (ant and maven for Java build)

     No.

     It is likely that a developer will need such, but if he does not,
then passing on them is acceptable.

     You can argue probabilities if you want.  I will not bother.  I
am thinking of the individual developer who might have no need at all
for the tools, or might well absolutely have to know them, but it is
the individual case that I am concerned with.

>B) it is fine developers with developer only knowing less used tools
>?

     It could be.  If that is all that a developer needs and will not
use the other tools, that is fine.

     If it turns out that a developer needs to learn another tool --
whether ant, maven, or anything else -- then yes, he ought to.  I just
do not see the point of learning a tool that one is not going to use.
Know about, yes; know, maybe.  I have sometimes only used a tool once
and never needed it after that.  Several versions later, what do I
really know about it?  Not much anymore.

>>>>> It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
>>>>> but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
>>>>> is a problem.
>>>>
>>>>        So the 50% to 70% who do not use a tool should still know it?
>>>> Rather a waste of time.
>>>
>>> Where do you get "50% to 70% who do not use a tool" from?
>>
>>       Simple negation.  If 30% to 50% of all Java developers use
>> certain tools, then 100%-30% to 100%-50% (= 70% to 50% which
>> normalises to 50% to 70%) do not.
>
>It is 30-50% each.

     Fine.  If no overlap, then 0% to 40% use something else.

>>> With 30%-50% usage for both ant and Maven that sounds impossible.
>>
>>    1) Overlap.  Some use both.
>
>Your 50-70 assumes perfect overlap.
>
>That is certainly not the case.

     I thought you were referring to the both of them since you only
gave one figure.

>And the survey in question (Eclipse 2011) was asking about typical
>build system, so the overlap must be very small.
>
>>    2) It was your figure.  Perhaps, you got it wrong.  This is not
>> normally a big deal, but when you keep hammering on a point, it would
>> be nice if you had your facts straight.
>
>What facts are not straight?

     Percentages.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#14304

On 5/1/2012 10:15 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:56:51 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2012 1:19 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:16:47 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
>>> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Who would hire somebody that only know about a very specific and highly
>>>> unusual environment?
>>>
>>>        You keep putting twists in your responses.  I did not say "only";
>>> you have just added it.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Because I assume that is what you meant.
>
>       How about checking instead of putting curves in?

Fair enough.

>> But let us get it clarified. Do you mean:
>> A) developers should learn the common tools (ant and maven for Java build)
>
>       No.
>
>       It is likely that a developer will need such, but if he does not,
> then passing on them is acceptable.
>
>       You can argue probabilities if you want.  I will not bother.  I
> am thinking of the individual developer who might have no need at all
> for the tools, or might well absolutely have to know them, but it is
> the individual case that I am concerned with.
>
>> B) it is fine developers with developer only knowing less used tools
>> ?
>
>       It could be.  If that is all that a developer needs and will not
> use the other tools, that is fine.
>
>       If it turns out that a developer needs to learn another tool --
> whether ant, maven, or anything else -- then yes, he ought to.  I just
> do not see the point of learning a tool that one is not going to use.
> Know about, yes; know, maybe.  I have sometimes only used a tool once
> and never needed it after that.  Several versions later, what do I
> really know about it?  Not much anymore.

So you really mean B.

And my assumption and argumentation was correct.

>>>>>> It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
>>>>>> but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
>>>>>> is a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>         So the 50% to 70% who do not use a tool should still know it?
>>>>> Rather a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get "50% to 70% who do not use a tool" from?
>>>
>>>        Simple negation.  If 30% to 50% of all Java developers use
>>> certain tools, then 100%-30% to 100%-50% (= 70% to 50% which
>>> normalises to 50% to 70%) do not.
>>
>> It is 30-50% each.
>
>       Fine.  If no overlap, then 0% to 40% use something else.
>
>>>> With 30%-50% usage for both ant and Maven that sounds impossible.
>>>
>>>     1) Overlap.  Some use both.
>>
>> Your 50-70 assumes perfect overlap.
>>
>> That is certainly not the case.
>
>       I thought you were referring to the both of them since you only
> gave one figure.

So you think I was recommending to learn N tools based
on their combined usage?

That was a weird assumption. Because it could be used to
mean any tool since ant+maven+X would be big for any X.

>> And the survey in question (Eclipse 2011) was asking about typical
>> build system, so the overlap must be very small.
>>
>>>     2) It was your figure.  Perhaps, you got it wrong.  This is not
>>> normally a big deal, but when you keep hammering on a point, it would
>>> be nice if you had your facts straight.
>>
>> What facts are not straight?
>
>       Percentages.

They are pretty straight.

The mentioned survey put them at 30.8% and 48.2%  - I don't
see any problems calling them tools with 30-50% usage.

Arne

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

#14365

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:45:10 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
wrote:

>On 5/1/2012 10:15 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:56:51 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>
>> wrote:

[snip]

>>> B) it is fine developers with developer only knowing less used tools
>>> ?
>>
>>       It could be.  If that is all that a developer needs and will not
>> use the other tools, that is fine.
>>
>>       If it turns out that a developer needs to learn another tool --
>> whether ant, maven, or anything else -- then yes, he ought to.  I just
>> do not see the point of learning a tool that one is not going to use.
>> Know about, yes; know, maybe.  I have sometimes only used a tool once
>> and never needed it after that.  Several versions later, what do I
>> really know about it?  Not much anymore.
>
>So you really mean B.
>
>And my assumption and argumentation was correct.

     No, actually, it is not.  It can be acceptable for someone to
know only some lesser-known tools -- it may be all that is needed --
but it is not necessarily so.

     If I have the choice of spending learning time on a commonly-used
tool that I will not use (for whatever reason) and a more obscure tool
that I will use, I will choose the latter.

     I might already have had a look at the commonly-used tool when
tool choice was being decided.  I might look into it a bit more deeply
later, but if I see no use to digging in, I will not do so.
Circumstances change, and if the tool is now something of use, then I
will dig in.

[snip]

>>> What facts are not straight?
>>
>>       Percentages.
>
>They are pretty straight.
>
>The mentioned survey put them at 30.8% and 48.2%  - I don't
>see any problems calling them tools with 30-50% usage.

     No, you mentioned one figure.  I naturally assumed that it was
for both since you were discussing both.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

Page 1 of 7  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web