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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20024 > unrolled thread

Hello World problem

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

Contents

  Hello World problem John Dildy <jdildy85@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 07:19 -0800
    Re: Hello World problem FredK <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 07:47 -0800
    Re: Hello World problem Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2012-11-30 12:34 -0500
    Re: Hello World problem Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-11-30 10:31 -0800
    Re: Hello World problem John Dildy <jdildy85@gmail.com> - 2012-12-01 18:45 -0800
      Re: Hello World problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-01 22:39 -0500
        Re: Hello World problem Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-12-02 11:05 +0000
          Re: Hello World problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-03 22:43 -0500
            Re: Hello World problem Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-12-04 22:43 +0000
              Re: Hello World problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-04 19:09 -0500
                Re: Hello World problem Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-12-06 15:52 -0600
                  Re: Hello World problem Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-07 20:24 -0500
              Re: Hello World problem Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-13 08:49 -0800
      Re: Hello World problem Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2012-12-02 12:19 +0100
    Re: Hello World problem John Dildy <jdildy85@gmail.com> - 2012-12-02 17:51 -0800
      Re: Hello World problem "Charles Hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> - 2012-12-02 23:17 -0500
      Re: Hello World problem Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2012-12-03 12:26 +0100
      Re: Hello World problem Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-12-05 14:30 -0800
    Re: Hello World problem John Dildy <jdildy85@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 14:44 -0800
      Re: Hello World problem Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-12-05 23:17 +0000
    Re: Hello World problem John Dildy <jdildy85@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 15:27 -0800
      Re: Hello World problem Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 15:29 -0800
        Re: Hello World problem John Dildy <jdildy85@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 17:17 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#20024 — Hello World problem

I have entered the Hello World file correctly but I am told I am missing a semicolon in line 1 when I attempt to run the file.

Here is my script:

https://script.google.com/d/1Agf_C5ERSvWtsMt4LigAxCDTpj598IkMSd4reLRpefMf83xbcyuMo9iI/edit

Anyone able to help me understand where exactly I have to put the semi colon at?

Thank you in advance
John Dildy

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#20025

On Friday, November 30, 2012 7:19:44 AM UTC-8, John Dildy wrote:
> I have entered the Hello World file correctly but I am told I am missing a semicolon in line 1 when I attempt to run the file. Here is my script: https://script.google.com/d/1Agf_C5ERSvWtsMt4LigAxCDTpj598IkMSd4reLRpefMf83xbcyuMo9iI/edit Anyone able to help me understand where exactly I have to put the semi colon at? Thank you in advance John Dildy

That's not java

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

#20026

John Dildy <jdildy85@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have entered the Hello World file correctly but I am told I am missing a semicolon in line 1 when I attempt to run the file.
>
>Here is my script:
>
>https://script.google.com/d/1Agf_C5ERSvWtsMt4LigAxCDTpj598IkMSd4reLRpefMf83xbcyuMo9iI/edit
>
>Anyone able to help me understand where exactly I have to put the semi colon at?

Here's what I see there:

function myFunction() {
  
}

That looks like JavaScript, not Java. They are very different things.
Which are you actually trying to use?

Assuming it's JavaScript, you have an empty function. It looks to me
like it should run, but it wouldn't do anything. How did you try to
run it?

If you are trying to use JavaScript, this conversation should move to
comp.lang.javascript

-- 
Tim Slattery
Slattery_T@bls.gov

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

#20029

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:19:44 -0800 (PST), John Dildy
<jdildy85@gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

>
>https://script.google.com/d/1Agf_C5ERSvWtsMt4LigAxCDTpj598IkMSd4reLRpefMf83xbcyuMo9iI/edit
>
>Anyone able to help me understand where exactly I have to put the semi colon at?

see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/helloworld.html if you want to write a
HelloWorld in Java.

I don't think that is what you want to do, however. You have Java
confused with some other language.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Students who hire or con others to do their homework are as foolish 
as couch potatoes who hire others to go to the gym for them. 

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

#20035

I have made changes to the project and I don't see the empty Javascript function.  However, I am trying to use Java.

Does anyone know if there is a beginner's group on google about Java and/or Javascript.  I see to be contacting people that are way a way's from the HelloWorld.java

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

#20036

On 12/1/2012 9:45 PM, John Dildy wrote:
> I have made changes to the project and I don't see the empty Javascript function.  However, I am trying to use Java.
>
> Does anyone know if there is a beginner's group on google about Java and/or Javascript.  I see to be contacting people that are way a way's from the HelloWorld.java

comp.lang.java.help may be a bit more beginner friendly than 
comp.lang.java.programmer!

comp.lang.javascript sounds as if it is a good place for
JavaScript, but I have never read it.

Arne

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

#20037

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:39:38 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 12/1/2012 9:45 PM, John Dildy wrote:
>> I have made changes to the project and I don't see the empty Javascript
>> function.  However, I am trying to use Java.
>>
>> Does anyone know if there is a beginner's group on google about Java
>> and/or Javascript.  I see to be contacting people that are way a way's
>> from the HelloWorld.java
> 
> comp.lang.java.help may be a bit more beginner friendly than
> comp.lang.java.programmer!
> 
> comp.lang.javascript sounds as if it is a good place for JavaScript, but
> I have never read it.
>
I visited some years ago. Not a friendly place.
 
In any case, I don't think its a suitable language for a programming 
newbie: maybe things have changed, but I wasn't able to find a good book 
to learn it up from. I was looking for something like the O'Reilly 
Python, PHP or awk&sed books, but could find nothing apart from 
collections of code snippets and definitely nothing with a coherent 
description of its syntax and run-time environment.
 

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

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

#20083

On 12/2/2012 6:05 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:39:38 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2012 9:45 PM, John Dildy wrote:
>>> I have made changes to the project and I don't see the empty Javascript
>>> function.  However, I am trying to use Java.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know if there is a beginner's group on google about Java
>>> and/or Javascript.  I see to be contacting people that are way a way's
>>> from the HelloWorld.java
>>
>> comp.lang.java.help may be a bit more beginner friendly than
>> comp.lang.java.programmer!
>>
>> comp.lang.javascript sounds as if it is a good place for JavaScript, but
>> I have never read it.
>>
> I visited some years ago. Not a friendly place.

Hm.

Dislike of beginners or narrow definition of on topic?

> In any case, I don't think its a suitable language for a programming
> newbie: maybe things have changed, but I wasn't able to find a good book
> to learn it up from. I was looking for something like the O'Reilly
> Python, PHP or awk&sed books, but could find nothing apart from
> collections of code snippets and definitely nothing with a coherent
> description of its syntax and run-time environment.

I have not read it myself but Professional JavaScript for Web Developers
from Wrox get good reviews and I have good experience with their
Professional Xxxxxxx books.

And ECMA-262 is not hard to read. It is a lot easier than JLS.

Runtime environment is a bit more tricky, because it somewhat
depends on the runtime.

:-)

Old IE, new IE, FF, Chrome, node.js etc. are not identical.

Arne

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

#20103

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:43:52 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 12/2/2012 6:05 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:39:38 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/1/2012 9:45 PM, John Dildy wrote:
>>>> I have made changes to the project and I don't see the empty
>>>> Javascript function.  However, I am trying to use Java.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know if there is a beginner's group on google about Java
>>>> and/or Javascript.  I see to be contacting people that are way a
>>>> way's from the HelloWorld.java
>>>
>>> comp.lang.java.help may be a bit more beginner friendly than
>>> comp.lang.java.programmer!
>>>
>>> comp.lang.javascript sounds as if it is a good place for JavaScript,
>>> but I have never read it.
>>>
>> I visited some years ago. Not a friendly place.
> 
> Hm.
> 
> Dislike of beginners or narrow definition of on topic?
>
Difficult to know. Seemed most like a bunch of acolytes fawning on every 
word of a self-appointed newsgroup leader who knew almost nothing except 
Javascript but didn't let that stop him handing down tablets about other 
languages.
 
>> In any case, I don't think its a suitable language for a programming
>> newbie: maybe things have changed, but I wasn't able to find a good
>> book to learn it up from. I was looking for something like the O'Reilly
>> Python, PHP or awk&sed books, but could find nothing apart from
>> collections of code snippets and definitely nothing with a coherent
>> description of its syntax and run-time environment.
> 
> I have not read it myself but Professional JavaScript for Web Developers
> from Wrox get good reviews and I have good experience with their
> Professional Xxxxxxx books.
>
Noted, bookmarked and the PDF version downloaded. Thanks. If I ever need 
to do anything with js in future they'll serve me well.
 
> And ECMA-262 is not hard to read. It is a lot easier than JLS.
>
I asked about language manuals, got pointed at "Javascript for the World 
Wide Web", which I thought should be good because I like Elizabeth 
Castro's "HTML for the World Wide Web" a lot. However the Js book isn't 
nearly as good: instead its much as I described with the language 
elements being buried under a heap of examples and details of browser 
specifics. There are some pretty good books where I worked at the time, 
but none seemed any better: most seemed to be aimed at people who can't 
program but who can paste half-understood bits of code into their web 
pages and hack at them until they do something useful.

The ECMA-262 specification was never mentioned on that newsgroup or I'd 
have grabbed and used it.

> Runtime environment is a bit more tricky, because it somewhat depends on
> the runtime.
>
Yes, sure. But, is that poor language design and specification or merely 
a lack of rigour on the part of the interpreter writers? I know there was 
a lot of handwaving and developers doing their own thing in the early 
days so I just wish that, at the time, I'd found a definitive enough 
Javascript specification to work from.
 

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

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

#20104

On 12/4/2012 5:43 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:43:52 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> And ECMA-262 is not hard to read. It is a lot easier than JLS.
>>
> I asked about language manuals, got pointed at "Javascript for the World
> Wide Web", which I thought should be good because I like Elizabeth
> Castro's "HTML for the World Wide Web" a lot. However the Js book isn't
> nearly as good: instead its much as I described with the language
> elements being buried under a heap of examples and details of browser
> specifics. There are some pretty good books where I worked at the time,
> but none seemed any better: most seemed to be aimed at people who can't
> program but who can paste half-understood bits of code into their web
> pages and hack at them until they do something useful.
>
> The ECMA-262 specification was never mentioned on that newsgroup or I'd
> have grabbed and used it.

It is pretty compact.

188 pages to cover both language and some core classes (a la
java.lang package in Java),

>> Runtime environment is a bit more tricky, because it somewhat depends on
>> the runtime.
>>
> Yes, sure. But, is that poor language design and specification or merely
> a lack of rigour on the part of the interpreter writers?

Well - I am not a JavaScript expert, but based on my very limited
knowledge about this then the main problem is that use of JavaScript
in browsers are highly dependent on the HTML DOM model and CSS support
used in the browser. So JavaScript is really suffering from the chaos
in the HTML world and not so much due to its own problems.

Obviously browser JavaScript and node.js usage varies a lot - applets
and Java EE are also quite different.

Arne

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

#20139

On 12/4/2012 6:09 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/4/2012 5:43 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> The ECMA-262 specification was never mentioned on that newsgroup or I'd
>> have grabbed and used it.
>
> It is pretty compact.
>
> 188 pages to cover both language and some core classes (a la
> java.lang package in Java),

That's a pretty unfair comparison. JavaScript is dynamically-typed, 
which means it just has to cover runtime semantics and can ignore a lot 
of the complexity that statically-typed object-oriented systems bring. 
Effectively, JS only needs to specify equivalents to sections 1-3, 14, 
and 15 of the JLS (with small portions of other sections), which comes 
out 215 pages by my count. Even then, the JLS also includes bulky parts 
in these sections that JS can happily ignore a lot of, including how to 
find candidate method overloads (a thick 30 pages unneeded in dynamic 
languages).

The core JS library is also pitiful by Java's standards, being far 
smaller than even just java.lang: Array corresponds vaguely to 
java.lang.ArrayList, String to java.lang.String, Math to java.lang.Math, 
Number to java.lang.Double, Date to java.util.Date (minus almost all 
locale concerns), RegExp to java.text.regex.Pattern, and Object and 
Function both covering features which don't really exist in Java but 
could be considered roughly equivalent to java.lang.Class.

>>> Runtime environment is a bit more tricky, because it somewhat depends on
>>> the runtime.
>>>
>> Yes, sure. But, is that poor language design and specification or merely
>> a lack of rigour on the part of the interpreter writers?
>
> Well - I am not a JavaScript expert, but based on my very limited
> knowledge about this then the main problem is that use of JavaScript
> in browsers are highly dependent on the HTML DOM model and CSS support
> used in the browser. So JavaScript is really suffering from the chaos
> in the HTML world and not so much due to its own problems.

When most people talk about JS, they're really talking about JS + 
"HTML5", which I'm using here to refer to both the DOM APIs presented by 
the HTML specification itself and the large collection of auxiliary APIs 
that are assumed to be implemented by web browsers. Most variance in 
practice tends to be associated with the DOM.

That said, there are some places where I've heard that increasing 
compatibility is contentious by various engine writers; the biggest one 
I know of is the iteration order of object properties (particularly if 
you have both "foo" and 0 as properties...).

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

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

#20167

On 12/6/2012 4:52 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 12/4/2012 6:09 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/4/2012 5:43 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> The ECMA-262 specification was never mentioned on that newsgroup or I'd
>>> have grabbed and used it.
>>
>> It is pretty compact.
>>
>> 188 pages to cover both language and some core classes (a la
>> java.lang package in Java),
>
> That's a pretty unfair comparison. JavaScript is dynamically-typed,
> which means it just has to cover runtime semantics and can ignore a lot
> of the complexity that statically-typed object-oriented systems bring.
> Effectively, JS only needs to specify equivalents to sections 1-3, 14,
> and 15 of the JLS (with small portions of other sections), which comes
> out 215 pages by my count. Even then, the JLS also includes bulky parts
> in these sections that JS can happily ignore a lot of, including how to
> find candidate method overloads (a thick 30 pages unneeded in dynamic
> languages).
>
> The core JS library is also pitiful by Java's standards, being far
> smaller than even just java.lang: Array corresponds vaguely to
> java.lang.ArrayList, String to java.lang.String, Math to java.lang.Math,
> Number to java.lang.Double, Date to java.util.Date (minus almost all
> locale concerns), RegExp to java.text.regex.Pattern, and Object and
> Function both covering features which don't really exist in Java but
> could be considered roughly equivalent to java.lang.Class.

It may be unfair but what so?

It is still only 188 pages.

It does not get easier to read more pages by the fact that more
pages is necessary due to the nature of the language.

>>>> Runtime environment is a bit more tricky, because it somewhat
>>>> depends on
>>>> the runtime.
>>>>
>>> Yes, sure. But, is that poor language design and specification or merely
>>> a lack of rigour on the part of the interpreter writers?
>>
>> Well - I am not a JavaScript expert, but based on my very limited
>> knowledge about this then the main problem is that use of JavaScript
>> in browsers are highly dependent on the HTML DOM model and CSS support
>> used in the browser. So JavaScript is really suffering from the chaos
>> in the HTML world and not so much due to its own problems.
>
> When most people talk about JS, they're really talking about JS +
> "HTML5", which I'm using here to refer to both the DOM APIs presented by
> the HTML specification itself and the large collection of auxiliary APIs
> that are assumed to be implemented by web browsers. Most variance in
> practice tends to be associated with the DOM.
>
> That said, there are some places where I've heard that increasing
> compatibility is contentious by various engine writers; the biggest one
> I know of is the iteration order of object properties (particularly if
> you have both "foo" and 0 as properties...).

It is my understanding that the problem of different DOM's will
mostly go away with HTML 5 as that standard actually specify the DOM.

Arne

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

#20292

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 22:43:59 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
<martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:43:52 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 12/2/2012 6:05 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:39:38 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

[snip]

>>>> comp.lang.javascript sounds as if it is a good place for JavaScript,
>>>> but I have never read it.
>>>>
>>> I visited some years ago. Not a friendly place.
>> 
>> Hm.
>> 
>> Dislike of beginners or narrow definition of on topic?
>>
>Difficult to know. Seemed most like a bunch of acolytes fawning on every 
>word of a self-appointed newsgroup leader who knew almost nothing except 
>Javascript but didn't let that stop him handing down tablets about other 
>languages.

     I do follow it.  There are a few people like that, but most are
not.  It is friendly to beginners actually trying to learn.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#20038

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 18:45:06 -0800 (PST), John Dildy wrote:

> I have made changes to the project and I don't see the empty Javascript function.  However, I am trying to use Java.

> Does anyone know if there is a beginner's group on google about Java and/or Javascript.  I see to be contacting people that are way a way's from the HelloWorld.java

Java is not related to Javascript. As you have posted on 

https://script.google.com/d/1Agf_C5ERSvWtsMt4LigAxCDTpj598IkMSd4reLRpefMf83xbcyuMo9iI/edit

your project files end with .js, which is Javascript, and not .java, which
is Java. Your code also contains "function myFunction()", which is a
Javascript function, and not a Java method.

I'm afraid you really are completely in the wrong place here. Despite the
strange similarity in name, Java and Javascript really are not related AT
ALL. This isn't like Basic and Visual Basic, two versions of the same
language, Java and Javascript are as unrelated as Georgia, USA and Georgia,
the country next to Russia.

People here are of course perfectly capable of "Hello World" examples, but
only in the language of this newsgroup - which is Java. We don't know
anything at all about Javascript (other than by random chance).

That being said, even people in a Javascript help group won't be able to
help you if you ignore peoples replies. Multiple people have asked you
questions about your attempted "Hello World" example, yet you have answered
none. If you are looking for mind readers, you might have to go look for a
different newsgroup alltogether.

Liebe Gruesse,
		Joerg

-- 
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.

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

#20050

For some reason the Google Script is messing with my file which I clearly classified it as .java instead of .js (javascript)

I have done the same with eclipse and I have gotten the right output in the HelloWorld.java file.

Thank you for giving some information out.

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

#20052

"John Dildy" <jdildy85@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:96dea5f0-69cd-4c82-acab-e2a3696ca0dc@googlegroups.com...
> For some reason the Google Script is messing with my file which I clearly 
> classified it as .java instead of .js (javascript)
>
> I have done the same with eclipse and I have gotten the right output in 
> the HelloWorld.java file.
>
> Thank you for giving some information out.

Google is your friend!

http://introcs.cs.princeton.edu/java/11hello/HelloWorld.java.html 

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

#20062

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 17:51:39 -0800 (PST), John Dildy wrote:

> For some reason the Google Script is messing with my file which I clearly classified it as .java instead of .js (javascript)

That's because Google Script is a Javascript scripting language.

Liebe Gruesse,
		Joerg

-- 
Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider
ungelesen.

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

#20119

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 17:51:39 -0800 (PST), John Dildy
<jdildy85@gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

>For some reason the Google Script is messing with my file which I clearly classified it as .java instead of .js (javascript)

How would it even know your file existed?  You must have told it. Give
it instead to the proper tool, Javac.exe.

See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/helloworld.html
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Students who hire or con others to do their homework are as foolish 
as couch potatoes who hire others to go to the gym for them. 

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

#20121

Could someone just delete or either stop replying, I have it fixed, just that I shouldn't be putting the .java codes into a .js scripture tool.

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

#20122

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:44:51 -0800, John Dildy wrote:

> Could someone just delete or either stop replying, I have it fixed, just
> that I shouldn't be putting the .java codes into a .js scripture tool.

Its good manners to tell us if/when you've fixed your problem, not wait 
three days and whine about people still trying to help. 

Maybe we'll remember not to try, next time.


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

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web