cannot find symbol?

Discussion in 'Java' started by qwertmonkey@syberianoutpost.ru, May 5, 2013.

  1. Guest

    > You no longer have to deal with Class tokens, instantiation, exceptions,
    or generics! ...
    ~
    > getCtxtDTO will return an Object of the static type T_Ctxt, but T_Ctxt
    > has no information about it, other than it extends Object. In order to
    > know more about it, you need an interface or base-class.


    > class Foo<T_Ctxt> in Java is *not* the same as in C++. Templates are not
    > even closely possible in Java.

    ~
    > What are you even *trying* to do?

    ~
    Daniel et al, the reason why I chose to use Class tokens, instantiation and
    generics instead of interfaces is because:
    ~
    1) this code takes command line arguments (which are all text/of type String)
    and returns an (I was hoping for, typed) object with marshalled and addressable
    data
    ~
    2) I don't want for users to have to write an interface for each set of
    command line arguments
    ~
    3) Since each type of program produces a distinctive type of object based on 1)
    a DTO is all you need as an output, which (IMO) is all the user should be
    required to handle
    ~
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    ~
    Now, in defense of "women walking on wearing really noisy hard sole
    high heels" ...
    ~
    >> For example, unnecessary noises bother the hell out of me ...

    > But you may (and you should) consider her less suited ...
    > I would imagine you invite them over less often than you do less noisy women.

    ~
    Once, in a totally serendipitous way, I met a girl from Hungary, who was a
    gardener, knew what semiotics is, had been raised (in Germany as) a Franciscan,
    .... (you definitely know sh!t when you trade on it!) To me she was some
    Kantian-like "that sh!t an sich" ... but she smoked (which was severely
    contradictory) ...
    ~
    >> Haven't you heard the joke about how an engineer a physicist and a

    mathematician
    >> fight a fire?

    > No, I haven't.

    ~
    A critical room in a crowded building gets in whipping fire:
    ~
    engineer: sets off all alarms in the building, calls fire department/emergency,
    makes his way into the room, starts using all kinds of fire extinguishers, makes
    huge mess and keeps frantically screaming from a balcony even after
    extinguishing the fire
    ~
    physicist: assesses the situation, asks a nurse (after clearly showing it to
    her) to find the right kind of fire extinguishers and stand by with more of
    them, tells her to tightly seal crack between the door and the frame with wet
    clothing after he gets in and to open the door to get him out if he doesn't
    knock from the inside every time after 30 seconds, puts on a wet mask, gets
    in trying to remain the least excited he possibly could, from a distance uses
    the right extinguisher creating the least possible mess and once done quietly
    offers to clean up the mess himself ... no one else finds out what had just
    happened ...
    ~
    mathematician: notices the ensuing fire, sees fire extinguisher, ... and walks
    away because "that problem had a solution"
    ~
    > The syntax of a program can interfere with understanding the semantics of it.

    ~
    "semantics" you say? it amazes me how we tech monkeys freely mess with concepts
    such as "semantics", "information", "abstract" and how we apparently think of
    coding (essentially some textual carpentry) as if it were high-end philosophy
    of some sort
    ~
    > There is a difference between politics and social acceptability.
    > I would do whatever I could to get you fired.
    > I would do this regardless of the type of job you were hired to do.

    ~
    yes, there is, but that difference is voided when "socially acceptable" people
    start seeing themselves as "the ones" and those who aren't as evildoers
    ~
    My mind might be somehow so exceptionally good at visually parsing out what
    should matter from what doesn't that I even find annoying that people waste
    time talking about such cr@p and/or it may relate to me being downright
    lenient when it comes to people's ways
    ~
    > Research, enterprise, embedded, teaching. Especially teaching.

    ~
    I may see your point somewhat with the former cases, but when it comes to
    teaching I can tell you that the job of a teacher is not "norming" people
    and/or putting their minds in straight jackets "for 'the greater good'"
    ~
    > On an unrelated note, it would be more polite of you to follow standard
    > usenet protocol for replying to messages. Keeping the thread in one
    > place

    ~
    I use some java code based on apache commons NetComponents and I haven't figure
    out how to troubleshoot that (nor have they let me know) it sometimes works

    http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-user/201209.mbox/date

    Albretch Mueller SimpleNNTPHdr HeaderFields ...
    ~
    > So a better analogy is that (of everybody driving on the same side of the road) ...

    ~
    your analogy is quite a bit forceful. I myself find the left-handed people one
    more appropriate
    ~
    > Ease of maintenance is a primary goal in creating software.

    ~
    I find often arguments about those (to me silly) issues. To me it is a totally
    technical problem people should not even have to talk about. I wonder why people
    maintaining software themselves haven't design software as part of the software
    dev cycles to
    ~
    1) convert/parse code from java classes (and/or source) into XML
    ~
    2) turn the XML using XSLT into "company/socially acceptable/SSCCE/maintenance
    friendly" code
    ~
    3) there may be certain things a bit hard to code for out. GUI would be a nice
    aid
    ~
    4) keep users/finger profiles
    ~
    5) keep the whole thing as a company-wide corpus
    ~
    > You want people to spend time ...

    ~
    Again, I wonder what makes you think that I want for "people" to waste their
    time trying to help me. If -YOU- don't want to because of whatever reason, you,
    very naturally and effortlessly indeed, can ignore it and that will be that
    ~
    Yes, I have coded quite a bit of FORTRAN, ANSI C, ANSI C++ and lately java and
    I even have a hard time keeping apart the three languages that I speak. I will
    however be a little more conscious of how harmful/upsetting to the coding style
    inquisition my coding is once I make it public
    ~
    Also, IMO, we tech monkeys should once if a while take our heads out of our own
    read ends for some fresh breathing. I (almost compulsively in an "unconscious"
    way) try to help people, even offering money to (whom I believe to be) single
    mothers struggling to pay for groceries, who sometimes even freak out when they
    notice a stranger handing cash to them. I don't tell them they should or
    shouldn't have done this or that, I just feel like I am helping my own single
    mother
    ~
    lbrtchx
    , May 5, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Daniel Pitts Guest

    On 5/5/13 1:26 AM, wrote:
    >> You no longer have to deal with Class tokens, instantiation, exceptions,

    > or generics! ...
    > ~
    >> getCtxtDTO will return an Object of the static type T_Ctxt, but T_Ctxt
    >> has no information about it, other than it extends Object. In order to
    >> know more about it, you need an interface or base-class.

    >
    >> class Foo<T_Ctxt> in Java is *not* the same as in C++. Templates are not
    >> even closely possible in Java.

    > ~
    >> What are you even *trying* to do?

    > ~
    > Daniel et al, the reason why I chose to use Class tokens, instantiation and
    > generics instead of interfaces is because:
    > ~
    > 1) this code takes command line arguments (which are all text/of type String)
    > and returns an (I was hoping for, typed) object with marshalled and addressable
    > data
    > ~
    > 2) I don't want for users to have to write an interface for each set of
    > command line arguments


    Then how does the code know how to parse the command line? You have in
    there hard-coded int, String, and long processing. If the parsing is
    different, how do you intend on specifying that?

    Anyway, it sounds like you want to dynamically call a method. You don't
    really need generics for that, you need reflection. See
    Class.getMethods(...) and Method.invoke(...).

    Do be aware that you can be too smart for your own good when dealing
    with Reflection. It is a jet-powered swiss-army chain-saw. It can
    solve a lot of problems, but it is no small feat of engineering to do
    so. If a bug is uncovered in reflective code, it will likely take longer
    to fix it than it would have taken to simplify the code not to use
    reflection in the first case.

    I should know, because I've done it both ways. I will say however, I
    didn't have to ask usenet why my code wasn't working, because I actually
    read the specs. I suggest you read up on both Reflection and Generics
    (and why they don't always play nice with each other).

    >> The syntax of a program can interfere with understanding the semantics of it.

    > ~
    > "semantics" you say? it amazes me how we tech monkeys freely mess with concepts
    > such as "semantics", "information", "abstract" and how we apparently think of
    > coding (essentially some textual carpentry) as if it were high-end philosophy
    > of some sort

    That's the difference between an engineer and a programmer. An engineer
    can see the meaning and intention of a design. A programmer merely sees
    a set of instructions for the processor to carry out. Programmers do
    fine on small bits of software, but an engineer is required to make a
    lasting system. Data is just data until its interpreted. That
    interpretation is what gives it semantics. Code is also just data. The
    compiler doesn't care whether your semantics are correct, it just
    faithfully translates what it can into machine code, and the CPU just
    faithfully executes what it can of that code.

    A human on the other hand, knows *why* the code is the way that it is,
    and what the goal of the code is. A human understands the meaning of the
    input data, and the meaning of the output data.

    > ~
    >> There is a difference between politics and social acceptability.
    >> I would do whatever I could to get you fired.
    >> I would do this regardless of the type of job you were hired to do.

    > ~
    > yes, there is, but that difference is voided when "socially acceptable" people
    > start seeing themselves as "the ones" and those who aren't as evildoers
    > ~
    > My mind might be somehow so exceptionally good at visually parsing out what
    > should matter from what doesn't that I even find annoying that people waste
    > time talking about such cr@p and/or it may relate to me being downright
    > lenient when it comes to people's ways
    > ~
    >> Research, enterprise, embedded, teaching. Especially teaching.

    > ~
    > I may see your point somewhat with the former cases, but when it comes to
    > teaching I can tell you that the job of a teacher is not "norming" people
    > and/or putting their minds in straight jackets "for 'the greater good'"

    No, but at the same time, a teacher should at least understand the norm,
    and the argument for and against it. I am personally someone who has
    gone against the norm for much of my career. With much success, I might
    add. The difference is that I could justify why the norm wasn't working
    for the case.

    Can you justify your naming convention over the Java communities coding
    convention? If you had a decent justification, I might just switch to
    yours.
    > ~
    >> On an unrelated note, it would be more polite of you to follow standard
    >> usenet protocol for replying to messages. Keeping the thread in one
    >> place

    > ~
    > I use some java code based on apache commons NetComponents and I haven't figure
    > out how to troubleshoot that (nor have they let me know) it sometimes works
    >
    > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-user/201209.mbox/date
    >
    > Albretch Mueller SimpleNNTPHdr HeaderFields ...
    > ~
    >> So a better analogy is that (of everybody driving on the same side of the road) ...

    > ~
    > your analogy is quite a bit forceful. I myself find the left-handed people one
    > more appropriate
    > ~
    >> Ease of maintenance is a primary goal in creating software.

    > ~
    > I find often arguments about those (to me silly) issues. To me it is a totally
    > technical problem people should not even have to talk about. I wonder why people
    > maintaining software themselves haven't design software as part of the software
    > dev cycles to
    > ~
    > 1) convert/parse code from java classes (and/or source) into XML

    Why XML? You've simply traded one syntax for another. It's symbol
    names, comment, and examples that help humans comprehend the meaning,
    not (just) structure and syntax.

    > ~
    > 2) turn the XML using XSLT into "company/socially acceptable/SSCCE/maintenance
    > friendly" code

    Would that XSLT translate "DTO_T_Ctxt" into an understandable token?

    > ~
    > 3) there may be certain things a bit hard to code for out. GUI would be a nice
    > aid

    I'm not sure what you mean by this.

    > ~
    > 4) keep users/finger profiles

    Most VCS's do this, or at least part of this.
    > ~
    > 5) keep the whole thing as a company-wide corpus

    See my reply to 4.
    > ~
    >> You want people to spend time ...

    > ~
    > Again, I wonder what makes you think that I want for "people" to waste their
    > time trying to help me. If -YOU- don't want to because of whatever reason, you,
    > very naturally and effortlessly indeed, can ignore it and that will be that
    > ~
    > Yes, I have coded quite a bit of FORTRAN, ANSI C, ANSI C++ and lately java and
    > I even have a hard time keeping apart the three languages that I speak. I will
    > however be a little more conscious of how harmful/upsetting to the coding style
    > inquisition my coding is once I make it public
    > ~
    > Also, IMO, we tech monkeys should once if a while take our heads out of our own
    > read ends for some fresh breathing. I (almost compulsively in an "unconscious"
    > way) try to help people, even offering money to (whom I believe to be) single
    > mothers struggling to pay for groceries, who sometimes even freak out when they
    > notice a stranger handing cash to them. I don't tell them they should or
    > shouldn't have done this or that, I just feel like I am helping my own single
    > mother


    On the other hand, if a single mother came to you, told you she was
    hungry and needed money for drugs, you'd probably feel somewhat
    compelled to explain that drugs won't fix her hunger.
    Daniel Pitts, May 5, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Danny
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,671
    Andrew Thompson
    May 26, 2004
  2. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,551
    Tilman Bohn
    Dec 16, 2004
  3. luch
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,344
  4. fybar

    cannot find symbol

    fybar, Apr 25, 2006, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    9,240
    Oliver Wong
    Apr 25, 2006
  5. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,767
Loading...

Share This Page