Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories!

  • Thread starter Lawrence D'Oliveiro
  • Start date
L

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Esmond Pitt said:
You posted, I responded. If you don't want responses, don't post.

Funny, you were the one saying you were fed up with responding, and yet here
you are again, after more punishment.
 
L

Lew

Lawrence said:
Funny, you were the one saying you were fed up with responding, and yet here
you are again, after more punishment.

You are a frikkin idiot, Larry. You are a schmuck. Why don't you just leave
the planet, dolt? You are a worthless, pathetic excuse for a human being with
all the intellect of a slime mold.
 
L

Lew

Lawrence said:
For pointing out that your Emperor has no clothes?

For being a complete idiot, Larry. You are a putz. You are a despicable and
nasty piece of work. You seem to derive pleasure from being a complete and
utter asshole, a job at which you clearly have an immense talent. I really
hope you wake up to what a complete waste of protoplasm you actually are,
Larry. You have no purpose on this planet and no one at all likes you, not
even your mother. Everyone who knows about you laughs at you, Larry.
 
J

javax.swing.JSnarker

You are a frikkin idiot, Larry. You are a schmuck. Why don't you just
leave the planet, dolt? You are a worthless, pathetic excuse for a human
being with all the intellect of a slime mold.

What does your invective have to do with Java, Lew?
 
J

javax.swing.JSnarker

For being a complete idiot, Larry. You are a putz. You are a despicable
and nasty piece of work. You seem to derive pleasure from being a
complete and utter asshole, a job at which you clearly have an immense
talent. I really hope you wake up to what a complete waste of protoplasm
you actually are, Larry. You have no purpose on this planet and no one
at all likes you, not even your mother. Everyone who knows about you
laughs at you, Larry.

What does your invective have to do with Java, Lew?
 
P

Paul Cager

You are a frikkin idiot, .....  You are a schmuck.  Why don't you just leave
the planet, dolt?  You are a worthless, pathetic excuse for a human being with
all the intellect of a slime mold.

You sound like the landlord in my local pub.
 
P

Paul Cager

Whereas I recognize the technical and engineering reasons for requiring
the deeply nested long directory names, I also have to say I agree that
they can be a pain in the butt, on two counts:
.... ...

I find it interesting that the convention is to use directory
hierarchies (e.g. com/sun/xml/internal) rather than a single directory
(e.g. com.sun.xml.internal). I wonder why they did that. Was it purely
pragmatic (e.g. some architectures might not support multiple dots in
a directory name), or was it to provide the illusion of a hierarchical
package namespace?

I wish Java _did_ provide a hierarchical package structure, e.g. a
package-private member in com.acme would be visible in com.acme.widget.
 
L

Lew

You sound like the landlord in my local pub.

Yeah, I have been on the wrong end of that rant many a time my own self, laddie.

At least I hardly ever get it from the man in the mirror any more.
 
L

Lew

I find it interesting that the convention is to use directory
hierarchies (e.g. com/sun/xml/internal) rather than a single directory
(e.g. com.sun.xml.internal). I wonder why they did that. Was it purely
pragmatic (e.g. some architectures might not support multiple dots in
a directory name), or was it to provide the illusion of a hierarchical
package namespace?

I wish Java _did_ provide a hierarchical package structure, e.g. a
package-private member in com.acme would be visible in com.acme.widget.

Stay tuned for super-packages, er, modules, coming eventually, we hope, to a
Java near you.
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=294

The JLS does not require a hierarchical directory structure to support
packages even today.
<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#7.2>

Packages are namespaces. In this they are similar to URNs, which need not be
hierarchical. It is sometimes convenient that subpackages are not part of the
hierarchically antecedent package.
 
D

Daniele Futtorovic

Whereas I recognize the technical and engineering reasons for requiring
the deeply nested long directory names, I also have to say I agree that
they can be a pain in the butt, on two counts:

My invective wasn't so much aimed at the original claim (which is just
as borderline reasonable as it needs to be to fulfil its trolling
purpose), but rather with the ravenous endearment for ignorance the
"argument" I quoted displays.
1. Typing long directory names or click-click-clicking to deeply-nested
folders is a pain, and will be required if you aren't using an IDE
like NetBeans or Eclipse -- and if you are, you just have the
package/class hierarchy to click-click-click through to get to
particular source files, instead, though at least you'll usually be
working in one small area at a time, and when there are compiler
errors or stack traces you can usually click in an IDE to jump
directly from the message to a suspect line in a source file.

Of course, the one-public-class-per-file thing (which has the same
engineering reasons) then becomes annoying when it leads to a tab
explosion in your editor. :)

I can assure you I never had any of the problems you speak of. Then
again, I'm not developing on a Windows box. ;)
 
Z

Zapotec

I can assure you I never had any of the problems you speak of. Then
again, I'm not developing on a Windows box. ;)

Non sequitur. It was my point 2 that was Windows-specific; the point you
actually quoted is cross-platform, much like Java itself. :)
 
D

Daniele Futtorovic

Non sequitur.

Not quite.

I haz shellz. I don't do clickety-click-click, I do tappety-tap-tap. I
haz grepz, and findz, and pipez. And w00tz.

I'z fine.

;)
 
L

Lew

3x+rav4gan said:
Perhaps you get it from that man too infrequently, Lew.

Indeed, or perhaps still all too frequently. How about you, O Anonymous One?
Does the man without the courage to post his name feel completely
unembarrassed by his own behavior?
 
3

3x+rav4gan

Indeed, or perhaps still all too frequently. How about you, O Anonymous
One? Does the man without the courage to post his name feel completely
unembarrassed by his own behavior?

Yes.

Though you're hardly one to talk when you are posting using only a small
part of your own name, Lew.
 
L

Lew

Yes.

Though you're hardly one to talk when you are posting using only a small part
of your own name, Lew.

Lew Bloch, you troll. Now go crawl back under your rock, maggot. Plonk, BTW.
 
3

3x7r4vagan

Lew Bloch, you troll.

Who is "you troll", Bloch? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias. And you were indeed posting using only a small part of your name;
you can't retroactively change that by posting the rest of it after the
fact, Bloch.
Now go crawl back under your rock, maggot.

Who is "maggot", Bloch? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
Plonk, BTW.

Famous Last Words.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,898
Latest member
BlairH7607

Latest Threads

Top