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 3 May 2010 00:20 BGB / cr88192 wrote: > personally, IMHO, I find that Emacs is just horrid and prefer to stay well > clear of it... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war> > the main thing I like about using the commandline and more ad-hoc tools is > that one is more free to customize the build environment to do what they > want (rather than being forced into the project-management and build > strategies the IDE developers had in mind). Since the primary IDEs out there support Ant- and Maven-based builds, that is a non-existent restriction. You have just as much freedom to structure a project using, say, NetBeans as you do with command-line tools. Your point is moot. > for example, one can choose the type of editor they want, have a lot more NetBeans's and Eclipse's editors work pretty much the same as everyone else's; the primary differences are in the syntax coloring and meta-syntactic features that are IDE-ish rather than editorish, like the refactoring tools. > control over the build process, and can create their own tools to perform > various tasks (typically processing source code in specialized ways, or Nonsense. The IDEs plug seamlessly into those very tools. > automatically generating source-code from custom textual formats, ...), or > use GUI-based tools for other tasks (such as GIMP, or wysiwyg GUI forms > builders, ...). What does GIMP have to do with Java? Even Eclipse fans begrudgingly admit that NetBeans has a superb GUI-generation tool. Which one do you prefer for Java? How does it not work with an IDE? > as well, anymore, the OS-provided shells (be it bash or the windows command > shell), typically provide a lot of nice editing features, so a command-line > interface is nowhere near as bad as back in the days of DOS (where, if you > wanted to repeat a sequence of prior commands, it was generally needed to > re-type them, ...). Nor anywhere near as flexible for Java development, in terms of syntax highlighting, refactoring support, name completion, navigation between source artifacts, debugging, ... I espouse that programmers should choose their own editors and IDEs, and be rated on their output and its compatibility with the team build / test protocols. Personally I use NetBeans when allowed, Eclipse and its offspring quite frequently, and am interested in this new Brown University "Code Bubbles" editor. <http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/acb/codebubbles_site.htm> I plan to look into JDeveloper, and I drop into emacs for quite a few things, even the occasional Java source file. -- Lew
From: BGB / cr88192 on 3 May 2010 00:35 "Arne Vajh�j" <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote in message news:4bde3853$0$280$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk... > On 02-05-2010 22:42, BGB / cr88192 wrote: >> "Eric Sosman"<esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote in message >> news:hrjvg0$su3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... <snip> >> >> I have not usually seen any others than: >> LF >> CR >> and CR-LF... >> >> this would seem to be all of them, and I suspect CR is falling into >> oblivion >> (since OSX switched to LF...). >> >> or such... > > There is a world beyond MS and *nix. > but, one almost never sees such files in common use... CR-only is a dying breed, but still not yet entirely gone... it is like EBCDIC: how often does one encounter a file in this format (at random, as in, not working explicitly with some obscure IBM technologies)?... simple answer: almost never... so, what can one do about things which almost never happen: well, simplest option is to assume they don't exist, and hedge their bets for the off case that they do... much like the chance that M68K will rise from the grave and grace desktop computing once more...
From: Mike Schilling on 3 May 2010 03:01 Arne Vajh�j wrote: > On 02-05-2010 19:28, BGB / cr88192 wrote: >> the majority of those developers, in turn, either use MS tools (MSVC >> or MS Visual Studio), and very often, an MS technology (such as C# >> or VB.NET, or they may use J# as their preferred Java >> implementation). > > Practically no one has used J#. > > After all a Java 1.1 source code compatible language is not > that cool a decade after the Java world moved on. J# had a funny history within Microsoft. Ir began as a half-supported upgrade path from J++, was made to work and spent a few years as a more-or-less mainstream part of .NET (e.g. API docs gave examples of it use), then it was "stabilized", and removed from the currrent versions entirely.
From: Mike Schilling on 3 May 2010 03:05 Jim Janney wrote: > At one time I did a lot of coding in Emacs Lisp, using Emacs of > course, and for that Emacs was a very good IDE indeed, as good as > anything I've used. Which leads me to speculate that for reasonably > dynamic languages (Java and Lisp and C# but not C or C++) the best IDE > is one written in the target language. For example, I really expect > any Java IDE to take advantage of the reflection API, and that's > easiest done from Java (or at least some JVM-based language). True, but the class file format is simple enough that one would whip up a (say) C++ version of Java reflection in at most a few weeks. I know less about JPDA, but I suspect the same is true.
From: Tom Anderson on 3 May 2010 05:46
On Sun, 2 May 2010, Lew wrote: > Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>>>> Fortunately "may not" is one of the modal negatives that has a >>>>>> fairly unambiguous meaning, as in, "not allowed". That doesn't mean >>>>>> that a lot of people don't use it incorrectly, though. > > Lew wrote: >>>>> "Correctly" according to you. I've heard "may not" to mean "might not" >>>>> my entire life. > > Eric Sosman wrote: >>>> "Mom, can I use the car?" >>>> "You mean `may'." >>>> "Sorry. Mom, may I use the car?" >>>> "No, you may not." > > Lew wrote: >>> Your point may not have been clear here. What are you trying to say? > > Eric Sosman wrote: >> That your mother may not have taught you good grammar? > > My mother is a retired English teacher. Ah, so that's why you speak retired English! tom -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. -- Gall's Law |