«

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 alsowrong, 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 isa 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' andJava'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

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.

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

On 5/1/2012 10:15 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:56:51 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2012 1:19 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:16:47 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<>
>>> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Who would hire somebody that only know about a very specific and highly
>>>> unusual environment?
>>>
>>> You keep putting twists in your responses. I did not say "only";
>>> you have just added it.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Because I assume that is what you meant.
>
> How about checking instead of putting curves in?

Fair enough.

>> But let us get it clarified. Do you mean:
>> A) developers should learn the common tools (ant and maven for Java build)
>
> No.
>
> It is likely that a developer will need such, but if he does not,
> then passing on them is acceptable.
>
> You can argue probabilities if you want. I will not bother. I
> am thinking of the individual developer who might have no need at all
> for the tools, or might well absolutely have to know them, but it is
> the individual case that I am concerned with.
>
>> B) it is fine developers with developer only knowing less used tools
>> ?
>
> It could be. If that is all that a developer needs and will not
> use the other tools, that is fine.
>
> If it turns out that a developer needs to learn another tool --
> whether ant, maven, or anything else -- then yes, he ought to. I just
> do not see the point of learning a tool that one is not going to use.
> Know about, yes; know, maybe. I have sometimes only used a tool once
> and never needed it after that. Several versions later, what do I
> really know about it? Not much anymore.

So you really mean B.

And my assumption and argumentation was correct.

>>>>>> It is not a problem not to know anything about some rare obscure tool,
>>>>>> but knowing tools that are used by 50% or 30% of all Java developers
>>>>>> is a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the 50% to 70% who do not use a tool should still know it?
>>>>> Rather a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get "50% to 70% who do not use a tool" from?
>>>
>>> Simple negation. If 30% to 50% of all Java developers use
>>> certain tools, then 100%-30% to 100%-50% (= 70% to 50% which
>>> normalises to 50% to 70%) do not.
>>
>> It is 30-50% each.
>
> Fine. If no overlap, then 0% to 40% use something else.
>
>>>> With 30%-50% usage for both ant and Maven that sounds impossible.
>>>
>>> 1) Overlap. Some use both.
>>
>> Your 50-70 assumes perfect overlap.
>>
>> That is certainly not the case.
>
> I thought you were referring to the both of them since you only
> gave one figure.

So you think I was recommending to learn N tools based
on their combined usage?

That was a weird assumption. Because it could be used to
mean any tool since ant+maven+X would be big for any X.

>> And the survey in question (Eclipse 2011) was asking about typical
>> build system, so the overlap must be very small.
>>
>>> 2) It was your figure. Perhaps, you got it wrong. This is not
>>> normally a big deal, but when you keep hammering on a point, it would
>>> be nice if you had your facts straight.
>>
>> What facts are not straight?
>
> Percentages.

They are pretty straight.

The mentioned survey put them at 30.8% and 48.2% - I don't
see any problems calling them tools with 30-50% usage.

Arne

On 5/1/2012 10:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:03:16 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2012 1:23 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:09:09 -0400, Arne Vajhøj<>
>>> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> I don't think anyone has claimed a need to learn any tool under
>>>> the SUN.
>>>
>>> Of course not. Everyone and his dog says to use his tool. The
>>> collective of all that yammering is one should use every tool under
>>> the sun.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> I have encountered many who each insist that the tools that each
> uses is what I should be using. Typically, they do not bother to find
> out my needs before prescribing. How good is such a suggestion? Not
> very.

Suggesting tools that are used by millions of Java devlopers
is a pretty good suggestion.

>> As I have tried to explain several times now, then one should
>> utilize other developers experience. If a huge portion of the
>> Java developer community is using tool XYZ, then there must be
>> something good about that tool. If developer NN suggest tool ABC,
>
> Sometimes, it seems that the good is only a marketing department.
> I have used some tools that are so awkward, I have wondered how they
> ever got released.

Do you consider "Java developer community" and "marketing department"
to be similar concepts?

Otherwise I can not see the relevancy!

>>>> The point people were trying to make is that you will not look
>>>> good at the Java job market if you don't know ant - especially
>>>> not with arguments like some of those posted here.
>>>
>>> To your first sentence: Yes, I understand that not knowing
>>> certain things can have an effect on getting jobs, but to judge
>>> someone totally or substantially on whether he knows one particular
>>> tool goes way too far.
>>
>> Unless the applicant can demonstrate good knowledge of all
>> other relevant tool, then not knowing one of the basic
>> tools like ant will cause the interviewer to assume that
>> there are many other holes in the applicants toolbox.
>
> Then, the interviewer is falling down on the job. He should be
> asking.

You mean go through all relevant tools?

That will be one very long interview!

Arne

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:49:11 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 5/1/2012 10:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>> Sometimes, it seems that the good is only a marketing department.
>> I have used some tools that are so awkward, I have wondered how they
>> ever got released.
>
> Do you consider "Java developer community" and "marketing department"
> to be similar concepts?
>
There's a sort of connection, in that there are definitely two disjoint
sets of tools out there.

One set was written because the developer(s) needed them and as a result
polished and tweezed them until they did the target job efficiently and
were easy and elegant to use. Examples include Awk, the PostgreSQL SQL
client, the Embarcadero DBA tools and the XFCE window manager

The other set have rough edges and seem so awkward to use that you start
to wonder if their author's have even tried to use them for the tasks
they were meant to do. Examples of this group include RPG III, the IBM
mainframe DB2 client, the ERWIN DBA tools and the Gnome 3 window manager.


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

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:49:11 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 5/1/2012 10:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>> Sometimes, it seems that the good is only a marketing department.
>> I have used some tools that are so awkward, I have wondered how they
>> ever got released.
>
> Do you consider "Java developer community" and "marketing department"
> to be similar concepts?
>
There's a sort of connection, in that there are definitely two disjoint
sets of tools out there.

One set was written because the developer(s) needed them and as a result
polished and tweezed them until they did the target job efficiently and
were easy and elegant to use. Examples include Awk, the PostgreSQL SQL
client, the Embarcadero DBA tools and the XFCE window manager

The other set have rough edges and seem so awkward to use that you start
to wonder if their author's have even tried to use them for the tasks
they were meant to do. Examples of this group include RPG III, the IBM
mainframe DB2 client, the ERWIN DBA tools and the Gnome 3 window manager.


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

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:49:11 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 5/1/2012 10:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>> Sometimes, it seems that the good is only a marketing department.
>> I have used some tools that are so awkward, I have wondered how they
>> ever got released.
>
> Do you consider "Java developer community" and "marketing department"
> to be similar concepts?
>
There's a sort of connection, in that there are definitely two disjoint
sets of tools out there.

One set was written because the developer(s) needed them and as a result
polished and tweezed them until they did the target job efficiently and
were easy and elegant to use. Examples include Awk, the PostgreSQL SQL
client, the Embarcadero DBA tools and the XFCE window manager

The other set have rough edges and seem so awkward to use that you start
to wonder if their author's have even tried to use them for the tasks
they were meant to do. Examples of this group include RPG III, the IBM
mainframe DB2 client, the ERWIN DBA tools and the Gnome 3 window manager.


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

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:49:11 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 5/1/2012 10:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>> Sometimes, it seems that the good is only a marketing department.
>> I have used some tools that are so awkward, I have wondered how they
>> ever got released.
>
> Do you consider "Java developer community" and "marketing department"
> to be similar concepts?
>
There's a sort of connection, in that there are definitely two disjoint
sets of tools out there.

One set was written because the developer(s) needed them and as a result
polished and tweezed them until they did the target job efficiently and
were easy and elegant to use. Examples include Awk, the PostgreSQL SQL
client, the Embarcadero DBA tools and the XFCE window manager

The other set have rough edges and seem so awkward to use that you start
to wonder if their author's have even tried to use them for the tasks
they were meant to do. Examples of this group include RPG III, the IBM
mainframe DB2 client, the ERWIN DBA tools and the Gnome 3 window manager.


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

On 5/5/2012 8:07 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:49:11 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 5/1/2012 10:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>> Sometimes, it seems that the good is only a marketing department.
>>> I have used some tools that are so awkward, I have wondered how they
>>> ever got released.
>>
>> Do you consider "Java developer community" and "marketing department"
>> to be similar concepts?
>>
> There's a sort of connection, in that there are definitely two disjoint
> sets of tools out there.
>
> One set was written because the developer(s) needed them and as a result
> polished and tweezed them until they did the target job efficiently and
> were easy and elegant to use. Examples include Awk, the PostgreSQL SQL
> client, the Embarcadero DBA tools and the XFCE window manager
>
> The other set have rough edges and seem so awkward to use that you start
> to wonder if their author's have even tried to use them for the tasks
> they were meant to do. Examples of this group include RPG III, the IBM
> mainframe DB2 client, the ERWIN DBA tools and the Gnome 3 window manager.

That is somewhat true.

"designed by committee" is not always a success.

But I do still not quite understand why Gene bring op marketing when
I suggest he use tools recommended by the developer community.

Arne