Do you suggest me using IDE when I'm learning JAVA
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: call jni function dynamically without getting a JNIEnv handleas an argument.
Next: Encoding issue on my jsp page
From: Lew on 1 May 2010 22:22 John B. Matthews wrote: >>> More specifically, one public, top-level class per file. There can be an >>> arbitrary number of package-private and nested classes. >>> >>> <http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#7.6> Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> This just say: >> >> <quote> >> When packages are stored in a file system (§7.2.1), the host system may >> choose to enforce the restriction that ... >> </quote> >> >> But SUN's implementation (and probably all other common implementations) >> of Java compiler does enforce. John B. Matthews wrote: > Interesting. In contrast, "a system that uses a database to store > packages may not enforce a maximum of one public class or interface per > compilation unit." > > <http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#37739> I read that as "might not enforce" as opposed to "has no permission to enforce". -- Lew
From: Lew on 1 May 2010 22:24 Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> A lot depends on exactly what it is that people are writing. If I was >> writing a Linux device driver in C I'd be cool with vim. But these days, >> where I have to deal with .NET or J2EE web apps with thousands of source >> files, I'd be an imbecile to try and do that with emacs. Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Emacs is pretty close to an IDE. > > But I don't know how good its Java and C# support is though. For C and C++, given that emacs integrates source editing, compilation, linking and debugging (synchronized with source listings), "close" isn't accurate - emacs is an IDE. I have not found it as useful for Java. -- Lew emacs has a built-in psychoanalyst, making it an IDE for the mind.
From: Lew on 1 May 2010 22:26 BGB / cr88192 wrote: > but, I have seen plenty of people get stuck on the whole Word <-> My > Documents <-> Filesystem issue. > notatbly, there are classes at colleges to try to address these sorts of > issues. > > theoretically, these people are still otherwise-productive individuals, just > for whatever reason they never really learn what goes on in the OS (and the > way Windows is designed at times doesn't help, it is about like they try to > specially design it so that people don't actually learn what is going on, > them instead apparently imagining the computer as some magic box which > stores Word documents or similar...). > > I have also seen people get dismayed when they manage to change directories > (or end up somehow saving their document somewhere else), and end up > thinking that all their documents have just disappeared, ... > > > then again, maybe these sorts of people are also unlikely to become > programmers?... Would that that were so! Well, ontologically it is so, but these sorts of people wind up collecting paychecks as programmers, and that irks me. -- Lew
From: Tom Anderson on 2 May 2010 07:05 On Sat, 1 May 2010, Peter Duniho wrote: > Tom Anderson wrote: > >> I should have phrased it better: i don't know a single good developer who >> develops on Windows by choice. > > That says more about your own personal professional and social circles > than it does the real world. Probably. But is was in response to this long-since snipped paragraph of cr88192's: >> but, we all know CRLF is the proper cross-platform line ending, since >> after all, it is used by Windows... (and typically people develop on >> Windows for Windows anyways, most non-Windows development often being a >> misnomer...). even when it is for non-Windows deployment, it is still >> typically developing on Windows for whatever is their target OS / HW... I object strongly to this notion of a de facto Windows hegemony amongst programmers. There is doubtless a majority, but it's not a monoculture. > I also have observed a fair number of religious fanatics who have an > unwarranted anti-Windows bias, as if it's somehow an obviously-inferior > platform as compared to other mainstream ones. I used Windows for years, during the '95 and 2000 eras. From a programming perspective, it was an improvement on the MacOS 9 which i'd been using before that. But OS X and Linux are a *huge* improvement on Windows. That's my experience. Does that count as religious fanaticism? tom -- Big Bang. No god. Fadeout. End. -- Stephen Baxter
From: Lew on 2 May 2010 07:18
Tom Anderson wrote: > I used Windows for years, during the '95 and 2000 eras. From a > programming perspective, it was an improvement on the MacOS 9 which i'd > been using before that. But OS X and Linux are a *huge* improvement on > Windows. That's my experience. Does that count as religious fanaticism? Yes, but not fanaticism on behalf of a particular OS, rather, on behalf of rationality, pragmatism and effectiveness. -- Lew |