«

Harold Yarmouth wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> When the gods speak, mortals should listen.
>
> When arrogant and megalomaniacal twits more or less come right out and
> call themselves "gods" in a bid to be heard, mortals should consign them
> to the depths of their killfiles.

Lew was not referring to himself as a "god", but the one who wrote the
linked article (i.e., Joshua Bloch, a key Java developer). I think it is
safe to say that those who wrote Java are better authorities on it than
you or I.


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

Lew wrote:
> Postgres follows the SQL standard wrt to datetime types. Probably the
> least compliant RDBMS in this area is Access, followed by MySQL.
> MySQL particularly has an idiosyncratic semantic for TIMESTAMP.

MySQL TIMESTAMP semantics are very common. It is just usually
called something else.

Arne

Lew wrote:
> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>> I am an experienced programmer and I'll thank you to stop badmouthing
>> me in public!
>
> Ancient Japanese saying: Only perfect practice makes perfect.

That is either completely irrelevant to this newsgroup's topic, or a
veiled insult AND completely irrelevant to this newsgroup's topic.

> Ancd you aren't going to thank him for anything.

That is not your place to decide. Who do you think you are, anyway -- God?

Lew wrote elsewhere in this same thread:
> I have ten years' Java experience and my "feel for these things"
> is quite different. It also helps that I have authoritative
> evidence that 'getX' factories don't necessarily imply singletons.
> When the gods speak, mortals should listen.

I'll take that as a "yes".

There's a cell waiting for you at Bellevue, and another one being warmed
up in a different place for after you die, I suspect.

Harold Yarmouth wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> It is the case in a large number of Java libraries, if not in Sun's
>>> own core classes.
>>
>> Just name 10 libraries.
>
> Just you stop pestering me and, especially, insinuating in public that
> I'm some sort of liar or charlatan.

But making claims and not being able to substantiate them is being
a charlatan !

> It is exceptionally rude and
> uncalled-for behavior that I shall not tolerate from you or anybody else!

Well - you don't have anything to say in that matter.

> (If you insist -- almost ANY ten.)

Names please.

Arne

Daniel Pitts wrote:
> Bad design != bug

I disagree, at least past a certain point.

Harold Yarmouth wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>> Mark Thornton wrote:
>>>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> Why should a second object inherit a value from the first object ??
>>>>>
>>>>> That depends on there being a second object. Ordinarily, having no
>>>>> constructor but a no-arguments "getInstance" method signals a
>>>>> singleton, or something with singleton-like behavior (such as one
>>>>> instance per calling thread).
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Yes, unless there's an obvious reason for a polymorphic
>>> implementation, such as the method's return value has dynamically
>>> variable qualitative behavior (not just dynamically variable in a
>>> parametrizable way).
>>
>> There are.
>
> No, there aren't.

There are.

>> Arab, Chines and Japanese calendars are very different from Gregorian
>> and Julian calendars.
>
> Irrelevant. Nobody much uses pre-industrial calendars anymore, certainly
> not for business applications and e-commerce.

There is nothing pre-industrial about those.

And internationalization of business apps are very common.

Arne

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> It has a set method that can set each of them individually and
> are what should have been used by Paulmouth.

Please do not misspell my name. It is not that difficult to get right.
And if you have difficulty anyway, copy-paste is just about foolproof. I
use it all the time myself if I run into a complex and long foreign name
-- or one with an accented character that isn't on my keyboard. Hint, hint.

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> I do not see Paulmouth's problem as a problem though.

That's two occurrences of the same rather improbable misspelling. I am
now forced to suspect that you are being intentionally rude to me,
Barney Vajhoj.

Harold Yarmouth wrote:
> "Cultural sensitivity" is neither here nor there. "Cultural sensitivity"
> is not a major concern of programming language or API design. It may be
> a concern of application user-interface design, but that's a whole
> different kettle of fish.
>
> Imagine if it were otherwise -- Calendar would not accept dates before
> 4004 BC, to avoid offending Christians, or after 2012, to avoid
> offending Mayans. There'd be something to prevent the coding of genetic
> algorithms. SecureRandom and all of the crypto would be missing, since
> some cultures strongly frown upon any kind of concealment or disguise of
> information, either from people in general or specifically from
> government or religious authority. Programs written in Java would refuse
> to work on Sundays. The sound, MIDI, and MP3 libraries would refuse to
> work when the current locale setting was Afghanistan and the system
> clock set prior to around mid-2003. And so forth.
>
> That is the sort of mess we'd have if we took
> designing-in-cultural-sensitivity to its logical conclusion.

Nonsense.

You can obviously not compare those two things.

Java enables people to write programs.

Java need to support multiple calendars to support people that
use those calendars.

Java needs to support sound for those that make apps that use
sound.

Java should not limit functionality due to Taleban religious
beliefs or racists that think only the Gregorian Calendar
is needed.

Arne

Harold Yarmouth wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> Nice to know that you're so culturally sensitive in ignoring
>
> "Cultural sensitivity" is neither here nor there. "Cultural sensitivity"
> is not a major concern of programming language or API design. It may be
> a concern of application user-interface design, but that's a whole
> different kettle of fish.

I was referring to "cultural sensitivity" to be polite in suggesting
"You have an arrogant Anglo-Amerocentric viewpoint." There are countries
who use non-Gregorian calendars for civil purposes, by requiring that
the API dictate everything in Gregorian, you've essentially said "screw
you" to said countries.

> Which means using the plain-Jane Gregorian calendar under the hood in
> Date and other business objects related to dates, with DateFormat or
> other similar classes providing translations into locale-specific
> representations.

When viewed pedantically, the typical fiscal calendar is not even the
same as the civil Gregorian calendar in place in most countries: March
1, 2009 is in the same fiscal year as November 2, 2008. So if I'm doing
calculations on a fiscal calendar, it should tell me that the two are in
the same year, right?

Note that time is near-impossible to determine good APIs for since the
human concept of time is not even consistent, let alone the technical
muck designed to make it saner for human use.

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