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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#13886

On 4/24/2012 9:20 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> On 24.04.2012 00:15, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>> Robert Klemme wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23.04.2012 06:57, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>>>> I found that using one good tool for everything is better than
>>>>> mixing things.
>>>>
>>>> Which, if followed religiously, will lead you into a situation where it
>>>> can get really awkward to do things with tool A which would be extremely
>>>> easy with tool B.
>>>
>>> This isn't necessarily a problem, particularly if a person is already
>>> familiar with tool A while being completely unaware that tool B even
>>> existed.
>>
>> Whoever claims he is Java developer AND unaware of ant cannot be a
>> professional.
>
> It was a hyperbole.
>
> And surely you are aware that a considerable number of people who spend a
> portion of their time writing Java code don't exactly make that their
> profession.

That is true.

But best practices for Java programming is what works for professionals
not what hobby programmers consider fun.

>> Also: sticking with a known strategy for too long instead
>> of knowing when to check other approaches is not a winning strategy.
>
> It isn't.  But wasting time checking each and every alternative that some
> bloke on the internet said was the winning strategy is also not a winning
> strategy.

Not particular relevant.

We are discussing whether to use one of the tools that 95-99% of
all Java developers use.

We are not discussing every alternative under the some.

Learning from others is a winning strategy.

> Nevertheless, after a quick google, I stumbled on a tutorial on how to
> "write and use makefiles to build java applications".  It doesn't rely on
> static pattern rules, and instead uses suffix rules.  I don't know how well
> this works, but you are free to give it a try and see if it doesn't work.
>
> On a side note, I don't believe that the point is to prove that the make
> tool can be made to work better than alternatives such as ant, but only that
> it actually works.

All experience shows that make and Java is not a good mix.

Use the tools designed for the task.

Arne

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

#14004

On 4/23/2012 12:57 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 4/22/2012 10:28 PM, BGB wrote:
>>>> it does technically work though, and may make some sense, say, if
>>>> one is
>>>> also building a bunch of C code (say, as part of a JNI wrapper for
>>>> native code or similar), or is generally part of a larger project for
>>>> which make is already used.
>>>
>>> I would rather call ant from make or make from ant to handle those
>>> situations.
>>
>> yes, this works as well.
>>
>> I guess it is probably whichever is more convenient.
>
> I found that using one good tool for everything is better than
> mixing things.

The one language, one IDE/editor, one build tool, one OS etc.
idiom does not work well in the real world.

If you want to develop in Java (at least for a longer time)
one should learn the proper tools.

> As long as the idea that drives the tool is: Perform this action
> to update these prerequisites that this target depends on, then better
> to use one tool that does this better and for many other things, not
> just .java files.
>
> In my tree, I have .f, .f90, .c, .c++, .java, .tex, and many
> other files that I want to 'update' in my tree.
>
> Using one tool for all, is better, because one becomes better
> at using this one tool, and things are integrated better.
> gnumake+bash is pretty much all what I need.
>
> I tried ant, and found that I am doing the same thing I
> am already doing in my Makefile, just had to use different
> syntax. (I also did not like XML syntax). Also looked at Ruby
> script, and few other things. They all pretty much try to do
> what Make allready does but using different syntax.
>
> It is very easy to use gnumake to build Java and make jar files and
> all. Here is a link showing Makefile for Java from the best book
> on gnumake "Managing Projects with GNU make" by Robert Mecklenburg
>
> http://www.makelinux.net/make3/make3-CHP-9#make3-CHP-9
>
> Chapter 9 is all about using make for build Java.
>
> As others said. If you are using an IDE with its own build
> system. It is better to have your own makefile to build
> your tree, independent of what the IDE has. This way, if
> you changed IDE, or move your tree somewhere else where
> this IDE is not available, you can still build your tree
> any where.

All major Java IDE's support ant from inside the IDE.

And if you have followed the Java world a bit then you would
see that make is not the tool of choice in the Java world.

That honor goes to ant and Maven.

And let me quote something from the link you gave:

<quote>
This is primarily due to the way the import directive works. Similar to 
a #include in C, this directive is used to allow access to externally 
defined symbols.
</quote>

Java import is not similar to C include.

And neither are used specifically to allow access to symbols.

Arne

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

#14033

On 4/28/2012 8:27 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 12:57 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> On 4/22/2012 10:28 PM, BGB wrote:
>>>>> it does technically work though, and may make some sense, say, if
>>>>> one is
>>>>> also building a bunch of C code (say, as part of a JNI wrapper for
>>>>> native code or similar), or is generally part of a larger project for
>>>>> which make is already used.
>>>>
>>>> I would rather call ant from make or make from ant to handle those
>>>> situations.
>>>
>>> yes, this works as well.
>>>
>>> I guess it is probably whichever is more convenient.
>>
>> I found that using one good tool for everything is better than
>> mixing things.
>
> The one language, one IDE/editor, one build tool, one OS etc.
> idiom does not work well in the real world.
>

agreed.


> If you want to develop in Java (at least for a longer time)
> one should learn the proper tools.
>
>> As long as the idea that drives the tool is: Perform this action
>> to update these prerequisites that this target depends on, then better
>> to use one tool that does this better and for many other things, not
>> just .java files.
>>
>> In my tree, I have .f, .f90, .c, .c++, .java, .tex, and many
>> other files that I want to 'update' in my tree.
>>
>> Using one tool for all, is better, because one becomes better
>> at using this one tool, and things are integrated better.
>> gnumake+bash is pretty much all what I need.
>>
>> I tried ant, and found that I am doing the same thing I
>> am already doing in my Makefile, just had to use different
>> syntax. (I also did not like XML syntax). Also looked at Ruby
>> script, and few other things. They all pretty much try to do
>> what Make allready does but using different syntax.
>>
>> It is very easy to use gnumake to build Java and make jar files and
>> all. Here is a link showing Makefile for Java from the best book
>> on gnumake "Managing Projects with GNU make" by Robert Mecklenburg
>>
>> http://www.makelinux.net/make3/make3-CHP-9#make3-CHP-9
>>
>> Chapter 9 is all about using make for build Java.
>>
>> As others said. If you are using an IDE with its own build
>> system. It is better to have your own makefile to build
>> your tree, independent of what the IDE has. This way, if
>> you changed IDE, or move your tree somewhere else where
>> this IDE is not available, you can still build your tree
>> any where.
>
> All major Java IDE's support ant from inside the IDE.
>
> And if you have followed the Java world a bit then you would
> see that make is not the tool of choice in the Java world.
>
> That honor goes to ant and Maven.
>

not disagreeing here...

but, it may depend some on the project (like, which languages are 
already most dominant in the project, ...). it is a little harder to 
make a clear case if the Java code is only actually a small part of the 
total codebase.


> And let me quote something from the link you gave:
>
> <quote>
> This is primarily due to the way the import directive works. Similar to
> a #include in C, this directive is used to allow access to externally
> defined symbols.
> </quote>
>
> Java import is not similar to C include.
>
> And neither are used specifically to allow access to symbols.
>

I think it may depend some on "how does it look from afar?".

the casual observer may not much think or care much about the 
differences between, say, "inlining big globs of text" and "gaining 
visibility into packages filled with classes" or similar.

they may instead think "using this directive allows me to use the 
library", while paying little attention to the hows or whys.

so, to them, "X looks like Y" may be more important than "X is Y" or "X 
is not Y" (even if this can get annoying sometimes, 1).

1: it is sad, but sometimes it is still necessary to try to explain to 
people the concept of "call-by-value" and "call-by-reference" and why 
they can't just assign an argument in a called method and expect the 
caller to see the change "even if the variables have the same name".

nevermind trying to explain to people why things like indentation are 
important, ...


this seems to be more the type of people the quoted paragraph was 
intended for (vague wording more intended to give the basic idea than to 
be strictly accurate).

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

#14034

On 4/29/2012 2:16 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 8:27 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> And let me quote something from the link you gave:
>>
>> <quote>
>> This is primarily due to the way the import directive works. Similar to
>> a #include in C, this directive is used to allow access to externally
>> defined symbols.
>> </quote>
>>
>> Java import is not similar to C include.
>>
>> And neither are used specifically to allow access to symbols.
>>
>
> I think it may depend some on "how does it look from afar?".
>
> the casual observer may not much think or care much about the
> differences between, say, "inlining big globs of text" and "gaining
> visibility into packages filled with classes" or similar.
>
> they may instead think "using this directive allows me to use the
> library", while paying little attention to the hows or whys.
>
> so, to them, "X looks like Y" may be more important than "X is Y" or "X

> this seems to be more the type of people the quoted paragraph was
> intended for (vague wording more intended to give the basic idea than to
> be strictly accurate).

It can be fine to come with an approximate correct explanation
if it is simpler to understand.

But it is not good to come with a completely false explanation
just because it is simple.

Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.

Try ask a C++ programmer if he thinks that include and using
are similar!

Arne

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

#14048

On 4/29/2012 11:33 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/29/2012 2:16 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 8:27 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> And let me quote something from the link you gave:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> This is primarily due to the way the import directive works. Similar to
>>> a #include in C, this directive is used to allow access to externally
>>> defined symbols.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Java import is not similar to C include.
>>>
>>> And neither are used specifically to allow access to symbols.
>>>
>>
>> I think it may depend some on "how does it look from afar?".
>>
>> the casual observer may not much think or care much about the
>> differences between, say, "inlining big globs of text" and "gaining
>> visibility into packages filled with classes" or similar.
>>
>> they may instead think "using this directive allows me to use the
>> library", while paying little attention to the hows or whys.
>>
>> so, to them, "X looks like Y" may be more important than "X is Y" or "X
>
>> this seems to be more the type of people the quoted paragraph was
>> intended for (vague wording more intended to give the basic idea than to
>> be strictly accurate).
>
> It can be fine to come with an approximate correct explanation
> if it is simpler to understand.
>
> But it is not good to come with a completely false explanation
> just because it is simple.
>
> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
>

well, both are used to make use of a library, even if what they do and 
how they work is considerably different.

both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near the 
top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of 
making them "similar".


I also did once see a person try to do something like (in C++):
#include <javax.swing>

and then respond in their defense that "C++ and Java were basically the 
same thing"... (nevermind if they are not...).


> Try ask a C++ programmer if he thinks that include and using
> are similar!
>

well, there is an important difference here:
you can't use 'using' to see a namespace which hasn't already been 
included, and also 'using' is typically used differently as well.

so, it is more like comparing C / C++ #include and C# using.

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

#14065

On 4/30/2012 1:48 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 4/29/2012 11:33 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/29/2012 2:16 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2012 8:27 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> And let me quote something from the link you gave:
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> This is primarily due to the way the import directive works. Similar to
>>>> a #include in C, this directive is used to allow access to externally
>>>> defined symbols.
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> Java import is not similar to C include.
>>>>
>>>> And neither are used specifically to allow access to symbols.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it may depend some on "how does it look from afar?".
>>>
>>> the casual observer may not much think or care much about the
>>> differences between, say, "inlining big globs of text" and "gaining
>>> visibility into packages filled with classes" or similar.
>>>
>>> they may instead think "using this directive allows me to use the
>>> library", while paying little attention to the hows or whys.
>>>
>>> so, to them, "X looks like Y" may be more important than "X is Y" or "X
>>
>>> this seems to be more the type of people the quoted paragraph was
>>> intended for (vague wording more intended to give the basic idea than to
>>> be strictly accurate).
>>
>> It can be fine to come with an approximate correct explanation
>> if it is simpler to understand.
>>
>> But it is not good to come with a completely false explanation
>> just because it is simple.
>>
>> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
>>
>
> well, both are used to make use of a library,

Neither of them are used to make use of a library.

Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.

C include includes some source code from another file in the
compilation of current file.

> both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near the
> top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
> making them "similar".

C include can be anywhere in the file.

They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.

>> Try ask a C++ programmer if he thinks that include and using
>> are similar!
>
> well, there is an important difference here:
> you can't use 'using' to see a namespace which hasn't already been
> included, and also 'using' is typically used differently as well.

Namespaces are not necessarily included and you can be using
using without any include at all.

Arne

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

#14069

On 4/30/2012 7:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/30/2012 1:48 AM, BGB wrote:
>> On 4/29/2012 11:33 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2012 2:16 PM, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2012 8:27 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> And let me quote something from the link you gave:
>>>>>
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> This is primarily due to the way the import directive works.
>>>>> Similar to
>>>>> a #include in C, this directive is used to allow access to externally
>>>>> defined symbols.
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> Java import is not similar to C include.
>>>>>
>>>>> And neither are used specifically to allow access to symbols.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it may depend some on "how does it look from afar?".
>>>>
>>>> the casual observer may not much think or care much about the
>>>> differences between, say, "inlining big globs of text" and "gaining
>>>> visibility into packages filled with classes" or similar.
>>>>
>>>> they may instead think "using this directive allows me to use the
>>>> library", while paying little attention to the hows or whys.
>>>>
>>>> so, to them, "X looks like Y" may be more important than "X is Y" or "X
>>>
>>>> this seems to be more the type of people the quoted paragraph was
>>>> intended for (vague wording more intended to give the basic idea
>>>> than to
>>>> be strictly accurate).
>>>
>>> It can be fine to come with an approximate correct explanation
>>> if it is simpler to understand.
>>>
>>> But it is not good to come with a completely false explanation
>>> just because it is simple.
>>>
>>> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
>>>
>>
>> well, both are used to make use of a library,
>
> Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
>
> Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
>
> C include includes some source code from another file in the
> compilation of current file.
>

this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what they 
do, but what purpose they are used for.


>> both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near the
>> top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
>> making them "similar".
>
> C include can be anywhere in the file.

but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or 
similar, where near the bottom is also common).


> They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.

yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.


>>> Try ask a C++ programmer if he thinks that include and using
>>> are similar!
>>
>> well, there is an important difference here:
>> you can't use 'using' to see a namespace which hasn't already been
>> included, and also 'using' is typically used differently as well.
>
> Namespaces are not necessarily included and you can be using
> using without any include at all.
>

except in most cases this will not accomplish nearly as much.

"using namespace std;"

by itself, will not give access say, to iostream, hence why people 
generally still need to use #include.

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

#14110

On 5/1/2012 1:59 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 4/30/2012 7:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/30/2012 1:48 AM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2012 11:33 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2012 2:16 PM, BGB wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2012 8:27 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> And let me quote something from the link you gave:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>> This is primarily due to the way the import directive works.
>>>>>> Similar to
>>>>>> a #include in C, this directive is used to allow access to externally
>>>>>> defined symbols.
>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Java import is not similar to C include.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And neither are used specifically to allow access to symbols.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it may depend some on "how does it look from afar?".
>>>>>
>>>>> the casual observer may not much think or care much about the
>>>>> differences between, say, "inlining big globs of text" and "gaining
>>>>> visibility into packages filled with classes" or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> they may instead think "using this directive allows me to use the
>>>>> library", while paying little attention to the hows or whys.
>>>>>
>>>>> so, to them, "X looks like Y" may be more important than "X is Y"
>>>>> or "X
>>>>
>>>>> this seems to be more the type of people the quoted paragraph was
>>>>> intended for (vague wording more intended to give the basic idea
>>>>> than to
>>>>> be strictly accurate).
>>>>
>>>> It can be fine to come with an approximate correct explanation
>>>> if it is simpler to understand.
>>>>
>>>> But it is not good to come with a completely false explanation
>>>> just because it is simple.
>>>>
>>>> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> well, both are used to make use of a library,
>>
>> Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
>>
>> Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
>>
>> C include includes some source code from another file in the
>> compilation of current file.
>>
>
> this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what they
> do, but what purpose they are used for.

They are always used for the purpose of what they.

The only thing you know that include is for is to include a file.

The includes file can contain prototypes for functions in a library
or it can contain macros or it can contain executable code generated
by another tool or whatever else.

>>> both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near the
>>> top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
>>> making them "similar".
>>
>> C include can be anywhere in the file.
>
> but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or
> similar, where near the bottom is also common).

Most often - yes.

But most often does not make it a characteristic of the feature.

>> They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.
>
> yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.
>
>
>>>> Try ask a C++ programmer if he thinks that include and using
>>>> are similar!
>>>
>>> well, there is an important difference here:
>>> you can't use 'using' to see a namespace which hasn't already been
>>> included, and also 'using' is typically used differently as well.
>>
>> Namespaces are not necessarily included and you can be using
>> using without any include at all.
>>
>
> except in most cases this will not accomplish nearly as much.
>
> "using namespace std;"
>
> by itself, will not give access say, to iostream, hence why people
> generally still need to use #include.

You forgot that you can also use using for namespaces defined
in the same file.

Arne

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

#14138

BGB wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> well, both are used to make use of a library,
>>
>> Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
>>
>> Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
>>
>> C include includes some source code from another file in the
>> compilation of current file.
>>
> 
> this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what they 
> do, but what purpose they are used for.
> 
> 
> >> both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near the
> >> top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
> >> making them "similar".

Clearly you are joking here.

>> C include can be anywhere in the file.
> 
> but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or 
> similar, where near the bottom is also common).

"Most often" is stylistic; the discussion here is how the constructs are dissimilar, and Java 'import' must be at the top, just as Arne said, and that is a difference. Your so-called counterargument is irrelevant as it does not countervail the difference.

> > They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.
> 
> yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.

And "include" is not a keyword in Java.  The comparison is both inaccurate and blazingly irrelevant. I know you are just jerking us around, but it's causing people to answer you seriously, BGB, so please stop.

-- 
Lew

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

#14142

On 5/2/2012 11:01 AM, Lew wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> BGB wrote:
>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> well, both are used to make use of a library,
>>>
>>> Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
>>>
>>> Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
>>>
>>> C include includes some source code from another file in the
>>> compilation of current file.
>>>
>>
>> this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what they
>> do, but what purpose they are used for.
>>
>>
>>>> both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near the
>>>> top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
>>>> making them "similar".
>
> Clearly you are joking here.
>
>>> C include can be anywhere in the file.
>>
>> but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or
>> similar, where near the bottom is also common).
>
> "Most often" is stylistic; the discussion here is how the constructs are dissimilar, and Java 'import' must be at the top, just as Arne said, and that is a difference. Your so-called counterargument is irrelevant as it does not countervail the difference.
>
>>> They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.
>>
>> yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.
>
> And "include" is not a keyword in Java.  The comparison is both inaccurate and blazingly irrelevant. I know you are just jerking us around, but it's causing people to answer you seriously, BGB, so please stop.
>

I was not joking here...

this was mostly a matter of "how pedantic or technically accurate a 
statement should be".

in this case, a technically inaccurate statement was used to make a 
point, but the technical inaccuracy would be "excusable" under the basis 
that many people wouldn't really care that they are different in these 
regards, seeing them as "similar".

so, the assertion is that strict technical accuracy is not always 
necessary, or for that matter, beneficial.


do people make a big fuss over "the sun rises and the sun sets" when 
in-fact it is the Earth that is moving?

in this case, the distinction is itself largely irrelevant.

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

#14153

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 12:21:25 PM UTC-7, BGB wrote:
> On 5/2/2012 11:01 AM, Lew wrote:
> > BGB wrote:
> >> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >>> BGB wrote:
> >>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >>>>> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> well, both are used to make use of a library,
> >>>
> >>> Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
> >>>
> >>> Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
> >>>
> >>> C include includes some source code from another file in the
> >>> compilation of current file.
> >>>
> >>
> >> this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what they
> >> do, but what purpose they are used for.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near the
> >>>> top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
> >>>> making them "similar".
> >
> > Clearly you are joking here.
> >
> >>> C include can be anywhere in the file.
> >>
> >> but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or
> >> similar, where near the bottom is also common).
> >
> > "Most often" is stylistic; the discussion here is how the constructs are dissimilar, and Java 'import' must be at the top, just as Arne said, and that is a difference. Your so-called counterargument is irrelevant as it does not countervail the difference.
> >
> >>> They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.
> >>
> >> yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.
> >
> > And "include" is not a keyword in Java.  The comparison is both inaccurate and blazingly irrelevant. I know you are just jerking us around, but it's causing people to answer you seriously, BGB, so please stop.
> >
> 
> I was not joking here...

Oh, my goodness. I am shocked.

> this was mostly a matter of "how pedantic or technically accurate a 
> statement should be".

Your statements went far past pedantry deep into the territory of utter uselessness.

The similarity that you propose of both beginning with the letter "i", for example, is so stupid as to be insulting, unless meant as a joke. It's also wrong, since the C directive begins with "#", not "i".

Try to stay with the program here. People are having a serious discussion.

> in this case, a technically inaccurate statement was used to make a 
> point, but the technical inaccuracy would be "excusable" under the basis 
> that many people wouldn't really care that they are different in these 
> regards, seeing them as "similar".

It was not excusable, not even with quotation marks. C's '#include" and Java's "import" are far too dissimilar to allow anyone to muddle them. This is a computer programming forum, and accuracy in this area is not mere pedantry.

You say "technically inaccurate" as if that somehow is different from "wrong".

> so, the assertion is that strict technical accuracy is not always 
> necessary, or for that matter, beneficial.

That has nothing to do with the topic of the similarities and differences between C's '#include' and Java's 'import'. Here, not being wrong is both necessary and beneficial.

> do people make a big fuss over "the sun rises and the sun sets" when 
> in-fact it is the Earth that is moving?

WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in Beijing?

> in this case, the distinction is itself largely irrelevant.

What distinction? Are you saying the distinction between C's '#include' and Java's 'import' is irrelevant to this discussion, because it's not.

Wrong ideas about programming are not beneficial to programmers, and "technically inaccurate" is wrong.

-- 
Lew

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

#14156

On 5/2/2012 12:21 PM, BGB wrote:
...
> in this case, a technically inaccurate statement was used to make a
> point, but the technical inaccuracy would be "excusable" under the basis
> that many people wouldn't really care that they are different in these
> regards, seeing them as "similar".

There are exceptions, and special cases, where the differences really
matter. I've written a C program that included the same file a dozen
times.

However, they very frequently take the same place in the formalities for
using library software, the same place in the life of a programmer. Each
of them is the answer to "What do you usually add near the start of a
compilation unit when using external software?" for its language.

Patricia

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

#14176

On 5/2/2012 2:41 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 5/2/2012 12:21 PM, BGB wrote:
> ...
>> in this case, a technically inaccurate statement was used to make a
>> point, but the technical inaccuracy would be "excusable" under the basis
>> that many people wouldn't really care that they are different in these
>> regards, seeing them as "similar".
>
> There are exceptions, and special cases, where the differences really
> matter. I've written a C program that included the same file a dozen
> times.
>

yes, granted.

I was not claiming here that they work similarly, or that they even 
really do the same thing. so, it isn't too hard to observe that, yes, 
import and #include are in-fact very different mechanisms.

but, sometimes, the actual mechanism doesn't really matter all that much.


> However, they very frequently take the same place in the formalities for
> using library software, the same place in the life of a programmer. Each
> of them is the answer to "What do you usually add near the start of a
> compilation unit when using external software?" for its language.
>

yep, this pretty much the main point of the argument.

both serve similar roles, and kind of look vaguely similar, even if what 
they do is very different.

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

#14303

On 5/2/2012 3:21 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 5/2/2012 11:01 AM, Lew wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> well, both are used to make use of a library,
>>>>
>>>> Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
>>>>
>>>> Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
>>>>
>>>> C include includes some source code from another file in the
>>>> compilation of current file.
>>>>
>>>
>>> this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what they
>>> do, but what purpose they are used for.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near
>>>>> the
>>>>> top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
>>>>> making them "similar".
>>
>> Clearly you are joking here.
>>
>>>> C include can be anywhere in the file.
>>>
>>> but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or
>>> similar, where near the bottom is also common).
>>
>> "Most often" is stylistic; the discussion here is how the constructs
>> are dissimilar, and Java 'import' must be at the top, just as Arne
>> said, and that is a difference. Your so-called counterargument is
>> irrelevant as it does not countervail the difference.
>>
>>>> They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.
>>>
>>> yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.
>>
>> And "include" is not a keyword in Java. The comparison is both
>> inaccurate and blazingly irrelevant. I know you are just jerking us
>> around, but it's causing people to answer you seriously, BGB, so
>> please stop.
>>
>
> I was not joking here...
>
> this was mostly a matter of "how pedantic or technically accurate a
> statement should be".
>
> in this case, a technically inaccurate statement was used to make a
> point, but the technical inaccuracy would be "excusable" under the basis
> that many people wouldn't really care that they are different in these
> regards, seeing them as "similar".
>
> so, the assertion is that strict technical accuracy is not always
> necessary, or for that matter, beneficial.
>
> do people make a big fuss over "the sun rises and the sun sets" when
> in-fact it is the Earth that is moving?

If it is a group for physics/astronomy I would assume so.

Here nobody cares.

If you consider Java import and C include similar in
alt.chocolatecake.baking, then I don't think anyone
will object.

But we will here as this happens to be a programming
group where a certain level of technical accuracy in
relation to programming languages is expected.

Arne

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

#14343

On 5/5/2012 3:31 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/2/2012 3:21 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 5/2/2012 11:01 AM, Lew wrote:
>>> BGB wrote:
>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> well, both are used to make use of a library,
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
>>>>>
>>>>> Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
>>>>>
>>>>> C include includes some source code from another file in the
>>>>> compilation of current file.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what
>>>> they
>>>> do, but what purpose they are used for.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
>>>>>> making them "similar".
>>>
>>> Clearly you are joking here.
>>>
>>>>> C include can be anywhere in the file.
>>>>
>>>> but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or
>>>> similar, where near the bottom is also common).
>>>
>>> "Most often" is stylistic; the discussion here is how the constructs
>>> are dissimilar, and Java 'import' must be at the top, just as Arne
>>> said, and that is a difference. Your so-called counterargument is
>>> irrelevant as it does not countervail the difference.
>>>
>>>>> They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.
>>>>
>>>> yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.
>>>
>>> And "include" is not a keyword in Java. The comparison is both
>>> inaccurate and blazingly irrelevant. I know you are just jerking us
>>> around, but it's causing people to answer you seriously, BGB, so
>>> please stop.
>>>
>>
>> I was not joking here...
>>
>> this was mostly a matter of "how pedantic or technically accurate a
>> statement should be".
>>
>> in this case, a technically inaccurate statement was used to make a
>> point, but the technical inaccuracy would be "excusable" under the basis
>> that many people wouldn't really care that they are different in these
>> regards, seeing them as "similar".
>>
>> so, the assertion is that strict technical accuracy is not always
>> necessary, or for that matter, beneficial.
>>
>> do people make a big fuss over "the sun rises and the sun sets" when
>> in-fact it is the Earth that is moving?
>
> If it is a group for physics/astronomy I would assume so.
>
> Here nobody cares.
>
> If you consider Java import and C include similar in
> alt.chocolatecake.baking, then I don't think anyone
> will object.
>
> But we will here as this happens to be a programming
> group where a certain level of technical accuracy in
> relation to programming languages is expected.
>

I think Patricia summed it up fairly well.

technically, they are not the same: they do different things and work in 
different ways, but with their similarity being mostly in regards to the 
role they serve.

the cooking analogy would be of substituting ingredients with other 
things: the things being substituted are not the same, but in a food 
product they may be similar enough. like, something calls for eggs, but 
a person uses something like mayonnaise instead, ... no one may claim 
that raw eggs and mayonnaise are the same thing, but both may serve a 
similar role in certain food products.

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

#14375

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>> do people make a big fuss over "the sun rises and the sun sets" when
>> in-fact [sic] it is the Earth that is moving?

In fact, in any frame of reference for which neither the Sun nor the Earth is the origin, both are moving.

> If it is a group for physics/astronomy I would assume so.
> 
> Here nobody cares.
> 
> If you consider Java import and C include similar in
> alt.chocolatecake.baking, then I don't think anyone
> will object.
> 
> But we will here as this happens to be a programming
> group where a certain level of technical accuracy in
> relation to programming languages is expected.

Really, why be an apologist for imprecise terminology? 'import' is an important (pun intended) notion to Java, and confusion of C and Java concepts is a well-known retardant to mastery of Java. The conflation of superficially similar concepts between the languages consistently causes trouble, so it is bad policy to support such error. Instead, assuming a commitment to helping one's fellow practitioners, one should take a stand to firmly reject such confusion.

Given that logic, someone attempting to support sloppiness in the distinction between 'import' in Java and '#include' in C opens themselves to accusations of disempowerment. Validly so, I aver.

-- 
Lew

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

#13802

On 4/22/2012 8:15 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.


Yes of course.  The devil will be in the details however.

<http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/>

<http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html>

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

#13805

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:15:30 +0100, 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?
>
Simple. Do just as you would for, say, a C project but use Ant instead of 
make.

> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single
> makefile.
>
Its the norm to use a single build.xml (ant's equivalent of Makefile) to 
do everything that make will, i.e. build, clean the source structure, 
install the jarfiles. The only significant differences are that its 
working with a package hierarchy rather than a set of modules in separate 
directories and that it will usually run javadocs too.

This is how I usually work with Java projects, often over an ssh session.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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

#13888

Martin Gregorie wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:15:30 +0100, 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?
>>
> Simple. Do just as you would for, say, a C project but use Ant instead of
> make.
> 
>> Bonus points if it's possible to pull this off by writing a single
>> makefile.
>>
> Its the norm to use a single build.xml (ant's equivalent of Makefile) to
> do everything that make will, i.e. build, clean the source structure,
> install the jarfiles. The only significant differences are that its
> working with a package hierarchy rather than a set of modules in separate
> directories and that it will usually run javadocs too.
> 
> This is how I usually work with Java projects, often over an ssh session.

Thanks for the help, Martin.  I had read your post a while ago, but waited 
until after I read up on your suggestion before posting a reply.

It appears you are right on the money.  As an added bonus, as some IDEs rely 
on apache ant to manage builds, it appears it makes it possible to develop 
with IDEs and text editors (and also switch between both), not only to write 
code but also update the build script, without experiencing any hickup in 
the process.  That's nice.


Once again, thanks for the help, Martin. Kudos!
Rui Maciel

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

#13807

On 22/04/12 16:15, 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.

Though I use Eclipse for any project of more than a few source files, I 
don't use it for building.  The projects include the necessary scripts 
to be built stand-alone.

I did explore trying to get 'make' to handle per-file dependencies, and 
I haven't totally given up yet, but for now I've settled for per-jar 
dependencies.  I have a pre-packaged 'make' include file, and tell it 
that jar foo depends upon the 'API' of jar bar, and it works out rules 
that allow compilation of foo to be necessary only if any of foo's 
sources have changed (of course), or the API of bar has changed - so bar 
can change internally without necessarily triggering recompilation of foo.

Within a jar, nothing special is going on - it's a clean build.

A jar's API is derived from the class files immediately after 
compilation.  I originally used javap and gawk for this, but javap's 
text output is not a consistent format from one vendor to the next, and 
the gawk processing is slow, so I eventually wrote a Java program to 
parse the class files directly.  It's a little faster, and should be 
more broadly compatible.  However, I think it's still substantially 
slower than simply doing clean builds on all jars unconditionally.

Details here:

<http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/~ss/software/pkg-jardeps>

Cheers,

Steven

-- 
ss at comp dot lancs dot ac dot uk

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

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

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

csiph-web