Dive Into Java?

[bryan rasmussen]

bryan rasmussen skrev:


Are you an american?

Irony does mean that one says the opposite of what one really means.

If you do it for humor its irony, if you do it for mocking it is sarcasm.

So now I see... americans really *do* understand irony.

To reiterate:

Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner. Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

 

[Max M]

bryan rasmussen skrev:

Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner.

Yes and in Rome "salary" meant getting a bag of salt. Concepts changes.

Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.

As a Dane that is a Chronic Ironic, I beg to differ.

In Denmark at least there is a lot of difference between irony and
sarcasm. Irony is the main form of humor here, and danes takes to it
easily. People being sarcastic we don't much like.

But I guess that it can be hard to se the difference for someone not
used to irony.

I believe the reason that irony works here is that we have such a
homogenous society. Somewhere like the US where the cultural differences
are larger, it is probably a lot harder for irony to be taken as such
and not as sarcasm.


--

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science

 

[Bjoern Schliessmann]

On Oct 9, 11:40 am, Bjoern Schliessmann

It is! All you have to write is

String eggs = "";

Unfortunately, the other object types don't have literals.

LOL. Sun likes their own String objects more than their principles,
don't they?

Can't be, because Java already uses the syntax for something
different than C++.

Ah, know what you mean (empty reference). That seems weird to me
too, altogether. This syntax break compared to basic types makes it
all most unaesthetic.

Regards,


Björn

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

For example: the overloading of assignment operators, casting

Isn't the overloading concept an effect of type strength? In Java,
you'd have to overload them too. Or am I missing something?

Yes. You can for example create a constructor for object Foo, which then is
implicitly chosen when assigning an int to a variable of that kind. So it
acts as a casting operator. I call that wicked, and subtle.

class Foo {
int _arg;
public:
Foo(int arg) {
_arg = arg;
}
};

int main() {
Foo f = 10;
}

That's an issue, though you don't have to use them both. Kind
of "historically grown".

Who cares for the reason - it is there, isn't it? You are the one claiming
that a new language should get rid of old concepts, btw. Where is your
money, and where your mouth?

Didn't come across this one though.

I did when doing embedded programming. bites you, especially in such an
environment.

Example:

int spam = 5;

but

String eggs = new String();

The latter seems totally unnecessary to me, as well as being too
verbose -- why couldn't they go the simple way as in Python and
just state

String eggs;

The unfortunate separation between primitive (read: numbers) and complex
types (everything else) is a stupid idea, I agree. However, that is
remedied with 1.5, and beyond the odd corner case in a very well matter
(see below.)

That's a wrong decision, IMHO. A new and practical language (what
Java wanted to be) shouldn't provide 3/4-compatible syntax, but be
clear, concise and customizable, and shouldn't say "That's bad, you
mustn't do that."

That is a matter of taste - but in the same way, we could argue about C++
and C, can't we? And it "just" took the very basic things - building
blocks, control flow and classes.

That's not exactly my point. What if I just wanted to build my own
interface compatible class ... impossible.

I don't understand that.

For a start, it just doesn't look pretty ...

String ham;

ham = "1" + "2";

... is translated to ...

ham = new StringBuffer().append("1").append("2").toString()

So what? Since when is compiler optimization a bad thing? What do you think
happens all the time when mixing types in C++? And I know of some very
elaborated schemes called "common base class idiom" for e.g. template-based
vector classes to introduce allocation optimization to arithmetic
expressions in C++.

The code _generated_ by the java compiler, and the C++ compiler, is not the
issue here. If you as a programmer can write "a" + "b", its fine. Which is
a thing to reach in C++, a bazillion of string-classes have been
written....


and in C++, you can do:

char *a = "1";
char *b = "2";
char *c = a + b;

But with a totally different, unexpected outcome.. I know where *I* start
laughing here.

Another funny thing are those awkward wrapper classes, but that's
been "patched" in an awkward way with 1.5 IIRC.

The way is not awkward, it is called auto-boxing/unboxing and works very
well. The odd corner case being e.g.

Boolean b = null;
if(b) { // NPE here
}


And this is more than matched by the subtle differences between

Foo a;
Foo &a;
Foo *a;

Diez

 

[Christophe]

Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :

The code _generated_ by the java compiler, and the C++ compiler, is not the
issue here. If you as a programmer can write "a" + "b", its fine. Which is
a thing to reach in C++, a bazillion of string-classes have been
written....


and in C++, you can do:

char *a = "1";
char *b = "2";
char *c = a + b;

But with a totally different, unexpected outcome.. I know where *I* start
laughing here.

That code doesn't even compile. And you shouldn't be using the char*
compatibility strings in C++ if possible.

 

[bryan rasmussen]

bryan rasmussen skrev:

Yes and in Rome "salary" meant getting a bag of salt.

According to Answers.com it derives from a word for money given to
Roman soldiers for buying salt, hence salary is pertaining to salt.

Concepts changes.

As was noted in my original statement the weak form of irony such as
understood by Danes and I suppose by Americans as well, since that is
what Steve was originally complaining about, is descended from the
concept of Dramatic Irony. If you do a dictionary lookup of irony
dramatic irony will probably be mentioned, also such more antiquated
usages as Socratic irony.

These other concepts of irony have not changed. You can use the word
irony in a technical manner to someone in the dramatic arts and have
the usage understood.

The weak form of irony, verbal irony, is a pretty recent addition to
the concept of irony.

To take a wikipedia discussion of the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

let's quote:
"Verbal irony is traditionally defined as the use of words to convey
something other than, and especially the opposite of the literal
meaning of the words. One classic example is a speaker saying, "What
lovely weather we are having!" as she looks out at a rainstorm
intending to express her dissatisfaction with the weather."

I believe this answers to the concept of irony as used by Danes
(especially given the example of the weather comment above which I
hear similar comments all the time.)

Given the wikipedia article and Steve Holden's description of
Americans as being clueless about irony for usages that you seem to
find correct I suppose that Americans are no more clueless or less apt
to understand Danish irony than Danes are. However, having been
exposed to Danish irony quite a bit I have to say that in my case I
understand it fine but it bores me, therefore when a Dane tells me
that Americans don't understand Danish irony I always secretly think
they probably wonder why looking out at a rainstorm and saying "What
lovely weather we are having" should be considered as a particularly
inspired use of the verbal ironical form. Also although I am not an
american I am often mistaken for one by Danes and when someone says
'What lovely weather we are having' (or similar) I will tend to be
rather ironical myself and pretend not to have understood their
comment as being ironical. And then they will try to explain irony to
me with very long and drawn out explanations. Fun stuff.

As a Dane that is a Chronic Ironic, I beg to differ.

In Denmark at least there is a lot of difference between irony and
sarcasm. Irony is the main form of humor here, and danes takes to it
easily. People being sarcastic we don't much like.

But I guess that it can be hard to se the difference for someone not
used to irony.

Yes, just what I was going to say.

I suppose that you will admit that the Danish Ironisk has the same
history as the English Irony, of course as the above mentioned
Wikipedia article mentions "Irony often requires a cultural backdrop
to be understood or noticed, and as with any culture-specific idiom,
irony often cannot be perfectly transplanted. " If you do so agree
then, as opposed to your example of 'salary', the current meaning of
irony being predominantly used to convey Verbal irony is rather
recent.


I may very well be missing some sort of meta-irony in someone saying
"What wonderful weather we're having" when its pouring in København's
Rådhusplads, as in a sort of self-ironical stance consisting of an
implicit statement of "what an idiot I must be for thinking it
worthwhile to comment ironically on the weather when everyone else
today has said the same damn thing. " but I don't know. The main point
is, I think, that verbal irony is understood as a meaning for irony
between various cultures and is not a unique invention of the Danes,
for unique linguistically defined concepts I think Denmark's best
strategy is still to push 'hygge'.

Now again, it may be somewhat old time fuddy-duddyism on my part to
insist on a stronger form of the word irony than verbal irony. I am
personally ready to use all the definitions of ironical forms
discussed in the Wikipedia article because they are technically
precise words and concepts for which we do not have words and concepts
other than them.



Med Venlig Hilsen,
Bryan Rasmussen

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :

That code doesn't even compile. And you shouldn't be using the char*
compatibility strings in C++ if possible.

It was out of my head. I remember producing some wicked pointer arithmetic
example of similar ridicule.

And the whole argument is about java having a lot of design decisions that
make it easier to work with is actually strengthened when you say that "you
shouldn't use the char* ..." - because its not forbidden, and maybe someone
else didn't follow that suggestion. I remember quite a few times calling
the stl-string-to-char-function (no idea how that is called now)

Diez

 

[Christophe]

Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :

It was out of my head. I remember producing some wicked pointer arithmetic
example of similar ridicule.

And the whole argument is about java having a lot of design decisions that
make it easier to work with is actually strengthened when you say that "you
shouldn't use the char* ..." - because its not forbidden, and maybe someone
else didn't follow that suggestion. I remember quite a few times calling
the stl-string-to-char-function (no idea how that is called now)

Well, char* really is a compatibility feature in my mind. And it IS
useful. How else would you interface C++ with existing C code and
libraries That was the most probable reason you were using the STL to
char* function.

Same for the const_cast. You shouldn't use it, but sometimes, you have
to interface with a C api that takes a non const char* as paramter,
despite the fact that it won't modify it in any way.

 

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

BTW, love the Anglo-Saxon nickname.

The usage started with an old AD&D character, then got ported to a
Traveller vargr (though why an Imperial vargr and minor noble would
carry an ancient Solomani name was never explained). Since then it's
been my primary on-line name.

{Though I do need to work on adding a few signature variants to
Agent -- that one is rather fat}
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
(e-mail address removed) (e-mail address removed)
HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
(Bestiaria Support Staff: (e-mail address removed))
HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/

 

[Georg Brandl]

Well, my assertion about America clearly doesn't preclude to possibility
of confusion on the part of the Danish too . You are right about the
general degradation of the (understanding of the) meaning of irony.
People are just too damned sloppy with language nowadays.

Let me tell you: There are times when I'm really glad that as a German, I'm
not supposed to possess any sense of humour at all.

warning-this-post-may-be-ironic-ly yours,
Georg

 

[Brian van den Broek]

bryan rasmussen said unto the world upon 10/10/06 08:25 AM:

As was noted in my original statement the weak form of irony such as
understood by Danes and I suppose by Americans as well, since that is
what Steve was originally complaining about, is descended from the
concept of Dramatic Irony. If you do a dictionary lookup of irony
dramatic irony will probably be mentioned, also such more antiquated
usages as Socratic irony.

These other concepts of irony have not changed. You can use the word
irony in a technical manner to someone in the dramatic arts and have
the usage understood.

The weak form of irony, verbal irony, is a pretty recent addition to
the concept of irony.

To take a wikipedia discussion of the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

<snip>

and earlier:

Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner. Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.

I enjoy a good round of weeping for the future over the declining
standards as much as the next pedant, but I think I must beg to differ
here.

A quick check with the on-line text of the second edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary (sadly, a link only available by
subscription) gives as the first meaning:

A figure of speech in which the intended meaning
is the opposite of that expressed by the words
used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or
ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used
to imply condemnation or contempt.

The first provided use squarely in this sense is from Sir Thomas More
in 1533. So, the language has been declining for a goodly while now,
it would seem ;-)

Best to all,

Brian vdB

 

[Ben Finney]

Let me tell you: There are times when I'm really glad that as a
German, I'm not supposed to possess any sense of humour at all.

+1 QOTW

 

[Theerasak Photha]

Let me tell you: There are times when I'm really glad that as a German, I'm
not supposed to possess any sense of humour at all.

hehe. That's so not true.

 

[Theerasak Photha]

The usage started with an old AD&D character, then got ported to a
Traveller vargr (though why an Imperial vargr and minor noble would
carry an ancient Solomani name was never explained). Since then it's
been my primary on-line name.

"You read a scroll of roleplaying jokes. You are permanently confused"

-- Theerasak

 

[Grant Edwards]

And she was pretty much right. Sarcasm is by far the most
common form of irony.

Well, my assertion about America clearly doesn't preclude to
possibility of confusion on the part of the Danish too .
You are right about the general degradation of the
(understanding of the) meaning of irony. People are just too
damned sloppy with language nowadays.

Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is when what is meant is
different from the obvious literal meaning of the statement.

Which may explain why she knew what irony was when so few
people seem to.

Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.

 

[Hendrik van Rooyen]

8<----------------------------------------------------------------

....... It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.

*ducks to avoid the nuclear fall out*

You should not do that Steve - they have no Sense of Humour either....

- Hendrik

 

[Theerasak Photha]

Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.

OH!! IT'S TEH 'META-IRONY'!! ZOMG!!!

-- Theerasak

 

[Ben Finney]

Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is when what is meant is
different from the obvious literal meaning of the statement.

Irony need not have anything to do with the meaning and intent of the
speaker. Indeed, irony can occur when there is no communication at
all; an ironic outcome does not require anyone to have said or
communicated anything.

Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic": What's
ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually contain any irony.

What source do you have for Morissette saying that? I've seen many
people saying it *about* her song, but nothing from her that isn't
just repeating what others have said.

 

[mensanator]

And she was pretty much right. Sarcasm is by far the most
common form of irony.


Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is when what is meant is
different from the obvious literal meaning of the statement.


Which may explain why she knew what irony was when so few
people seem to.

Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.

Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?

 

[Theerasak Photha]

Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?

I hate June. June sucks. Blindly following some Roman custom relating
to Juno (the real reason why people have June weddings) + hot, humid
weather + completely impractical formal wear with a thick, unbreathing
layer of shirts and paper thin pants that never quite fit is teh sux.

I may be brown, but this time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere
when the weather is chilly but not intolerable, and one can read by
the moonlight is, OTOH, teh win.

-- Theerasak