Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML??

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML??

 
 
Gene Wirchenko
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2012
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:47:46 -0400, Arne Vajh°j <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 7/26/2012 2:01 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:


[snip]

>> It may be quite reasonable to decide that you are only willing to
>> respond to questions from people who follow conventions you like, but I
>> don't think it is reasonable to call something not Java because it does
>> not follow those conventions.

>
>Whether some code is valid in the Java language and its semantics
>are obviously defined by the JLS.
>
>But Java comes with a baggage of history, philosophy,
>traditions and lessons learned.


And mistakes made. Every language has its downside even _____.
(Fill in the blank however you choose.)

>Java developers are not all identical.
>
>If we look at some of the statements made in various threads:
>- OOP is just overhead
>- patterns are useless
>- micro optimizations are good
>- public fields are OK
>- interfaces are useless
>- I don't want to follow the standard naming convention
>- I don't want to follow the standard formatting convention
>- I don't want to use the Java library because my own is better
>- portability is useless
>- unit tests are useless
>- ORM's are useless
>- make is the right build tool for Java
>- UML is useles
>- Java docs are useless
>etc.
>then the archetype Java developer would not believe in any of them.


Oh?

These statements are written as binary. Either it is right or it
is wrong. And many are just bait.

Take the first one. "OOP is just overhead" OOP does have
overhead. That might or might not matter. If the benefits of OOP
outweigh the disadvantages, it may well be used. In another
situation, it might not do. In many, it does not matter.

Other points can be disposed of similarly. There are only a few
that I would totally agree with.

>But many Java developers actually believe in a few of them, because
>people are different with different personal experiences and working
>in different domains. And best practices are not an exact science.


Quite.

>Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
>about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
>is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
>overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
>person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
>kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
>when they hire a Java developer.


[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2012
Wanja Gayk wrote:
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable
>>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java.

>
>> Maybe not.
>>
>> But it is still a bad idea.
>>
>> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.

>
> "You can write FORTRAN in any language."
>
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535


Funny, but it ducks the point.

And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.

I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java.

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2012
On 8/2/2012 7:48 PM, Lew wrote:
> Wanja Gayk wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable
>>>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java.

>>
>>> Maybe not.
>>>
>>> But it is still a bad idea.
>>>
>>> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.

>>
>> "You can write FORTRAN in any language."
>>
>> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535

>
> Funny, but it ducks the point.
>
> And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.
>
> I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java.


Somehow I think you have gotten Wanja and Gene mixed up.

I have no reason to believe that Wanja is anti-"Java best pracice".

In fact I see his post as being definite but subtle pro-"Java
best pracice".

Arne

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2012
Arne Vajh°j wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Wanja Gayk wrote:
>>> Arne Vajh°j says...
>>>>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable
>>>>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java.


>>>> Maybe not.
>>>>
>>>> But it is still a bad idea.
>>>>
>>>> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.
>>>
>>> "You can write FORTRAN in any language."
>>>
>>> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535


>> Funny, but it ducks the point.
>>
>> And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.
>>
>> I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java.

>
> Somehow I think you have gotten Wanja and Gene mixed up.


The lack of attributions in the post I answered is what I choose to blame.

Yes, I should have researched the upthread context. So OK, I blame myself.

> I have no reason to believe that Wanja is anti-"Java best pracice".
>
> In fact I see his post as being definite but subtle pro-"Java
> best practice".


I am embarrassed. You are exactly right. I apologize, Wanja.

I missed your point completely.

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
John B. Matthews
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Patricia Shanahan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >
> >> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.

> >
> > You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old
> > hand shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's
> > arm with our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you
> > operated your old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're
> > used to that.
> >
> > Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do
> > the same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way
> > their inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another
> > tool previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the
> > brightest idea.

>
> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective
> use of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the
> wood, and tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a
> wood chisel and a mallet does that the same way round.


One sharp on both ends might be widely rejected as dangerous; one blunt
on both ends might be an unfamiliar style of draw knife. I see no harm
in polite explication in either case.

> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as
> though the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most
> excavators of that model were painted green. A particular user has a
> lot of hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of
> excavators, and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the
> inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.
>
> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
> take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
> should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user
> unless he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.


A medical supply vendor asks for help marketing a new line of compressed
nitrous oxide. Instead of the familiar blue, the tanks are green,
"nitrous" is almost illegible, and "oxide" is misspelled in a
particularly unfortunate way. No one comments. An errant bottle finds
its way to a matching green oxygen manifold; hapless victims enter a
persistent vegetative state. Misery ensues.

As a practical matter, most stylistic vagaries fall between these
consequential extremes. I would encourage posters to welcome related
answers, both those that cite a problem and those that comment on its
relative importance.

--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John B. Matthews
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
Patricia Shanahan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[...]
> >> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for
> >> effective use of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel
> >> against the wood, and tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure
> >> everyone using a wood chisel and a mallet does that the same way
> >> round.

> >
> > One sharp on both ends might be widely rejected as dangerous; one
> > blunt on both ends might be an unfamiliar style of draw knife. I
> > see no harm in polite explication in either case.
> >
> >> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as
> >> though the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most
> >> excavators of that model were painted green. A particular user has
> >> a lot of hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models
> >> of excavators, and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the
> >> inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.
> >>
> >> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some
> >> people take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him
> >> that it should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator
> >> user unless he paints it green, and that green paint is the
> >> excavator way.

> >
> > A medical supply vendor asks for help marketing a new line of
> > compressed nitrous oxide. Instead of the familiar blue, the tanks
> > are green, "nitrous" is almost illegible, and "oxide" is misspelled
> > in a particularly unfortunate way. No one comments. An errant
> > bottle finds its way to a matching green oxygen manifold; hapless
> > victims enter a persistent vegetative state. Misery ensues.

>
> This seems like a good argument in support of sticking to one style,
> regardless of brand. The programming equivalent is using one set of
> conventions for indentation and identifier construction regardless of
> programming language. That way, there is less risk of someone
> misreading an identifier because it is in a different style from code
> in another language they have been using.


Sorry, the best I can muster is a few variations per language. I've
grown too dependent on perceptual cues that help me change gear into
whatever language I face. This may be an artifact of having worked
largely in code bases that already followed established, widely used
guidelines.

--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2012
On 7/27/2012 12:05 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 11:47 AM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
> ...
>> Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
>> about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
>> is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
>> overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
>> person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
>> kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
>> when they hire a Java developer.

> ...
>
> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies. Java
> happens to be a favorite tool, one that fits my brain the way my
> favorite wood carving chisel fits my hand. On the other hand, I no more
> subscribe to "the Java way" than to a "the half inch chisel way".
>
> When I'm starting a new program, in a situation in which I'm free to use
> any standards I like, I follow the commonest conventions for the
> program's language. If I'm modifying or adding to an existing project,
> or working in an organization that has other conventions, I follow the
> local conventions.


So in reality you are subscribing to the Java way.

Arne


 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2012
On 8/4/2012 10:45 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>>> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.

>>
>> You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old hand
>> shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's arm with
>> our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you operated your
>> old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're used to that.
>>
>> Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do the
>> same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way their
>> inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another tool
>> previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the brightest
>> idea.

>
> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective use
> of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the wood, and
> tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a wood chisel
> and a mallet does that the same way round.
>
> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as though
> the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most excavators of
> that model were painted green. A particular user has a lot of
> hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of excavators,
> and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the inconvenience of
> keeping different paint colors around.
>
> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
> take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
> should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user unless
> he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.


That is a lousy analogy.

There should not be any real impact due to different colors of
the excavators.

There are real (negative!) impact of using:
- different coding conventions
- different diagram symbols

Arne



 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh├Şj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2012
On 8/5/2012 11:41 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 8/5/2012 7:50 AM, John B. Matthews wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Patricia Shanahan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>>
>>>>> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.
>>>>
>>>> You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old
>>>> hand shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's
>>>> arm with our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you
>>>> operated your old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're
>>>> used to that.
>>>>
>>>> Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do
>>>> the same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way
>>>> their inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another
>>>> tool previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the
>>>> brightest idea.
>>>
>>> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective
>>> use of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the
>>> wood, and tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a
>>> wood chisel and a mallet does that the same way round.

>>
>> One sharp on both ends might be widely rejected as dangerous; one blunt
>> on both ends might be an unfamiliar style of draw knife. I see no harm
>> in polite explication in either case.
>>
>>> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as
>>> though the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most
>>> excavators of that model were painted green. A particular user has a
>>> lot of hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of
>>> excavators, and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the
>>> inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.
>>>
>>> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
>>> take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
>>> should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user
>>> unless he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.

>>
>> A medical supply vendor asks for help marketing a new line of compressed
>> nitrous oxide. Instead of the familiar blue, the tanks are green,
>> "nitrous" is almost illegible, and "oxide" is misspelled in a
>> particularly unfortunate way. No one comments. An errant bottle finds
>> its way to a matching green oxygen manifold; hapless victims enter a
>> persistent vegetative state. Misery ensues.

>
> This seems like a good argument in support of sticking to one style,
> regardless of brand. The programming equivalent is using one set of
> conventions for indentation and identifier construction regardless of
> programming language. That way, there is less risk of someone misreading
> an identifier because it is in a different style from code in another
> language they have been using.


I think same brand for programming languages is SUN Java and
IBM Java for Java, GCC and MSVC++ for C/C++ etc..

And it certainly makes sense to use the same conventions
no matter what vendor provides the compiler.

Different languages must be more like different type
of bottles: medical supply, beverages, poisons.

And they do not use same color convention.

Arne



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajh°j Java 3 08-08-2012 06:20 AM
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko Java 7 08-02-2012 10:31 PM
Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Ramon F. Herrera Java 30 08-02-2012 08:57 AM
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? David Lamb Java 0 07-27-2012 06:40 PM
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko Java 1 07-25-2012 10:42 PM



Advertisments