how to study java

Discussion in 'Java' started by wiesin, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. wiesin

    wiesin Guest

    can seasoned developer teach me how to study java
    Thanks!
    wiesin, Jan 7, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wiesin

    Lew Guest

    wiesin wrote:
    > can seasoned developer teach me how to study java


    Continuously for the rest of your career. :)

    Start with the Java tutorials:
    http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/index.html

    They're simple and a bit limited, but that's what tutorials are for.

    There's more documentation from Oracle at:
    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/index.html

    Do exercises - write simple programs. For hints on how to do that see:
    http://home.earthlink.net/~patricia_shanahan/beginner.html

    I'm not too familiar with the starter books. /Java in 21 Days/ helped me back
    in the 90s; others in this forum will probably chime in with recommendations.

    To master the language you will need to own and study /Effective Java/ by
    Joshua Bloch:
    http://java.sun.com/docs/books/effective/

    By the way, the name of the language is "Java", not "java".

    --
    Lew
    Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
    Lew, Jan 7, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wiesin

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 01:57:54 -0800 (PST), wiesin
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
    said :

    >can seasoned developer teach me how to study java


    see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/gettingstarted.html
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    http://mindprod.com
    To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
    ~ Farmer's Almanac
    It is breathtaking how a misplaced comma in a computer program can
    shred megabytes of data in seconds.
    Roedy Green, Jan 7, 2011
    #3
  4. wiesin

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 07-01-2011 04:57, wiesin wrote:
    > can seasoned developer teach me how to study java


    Read some books about Java.

    And practice.

    After 5-10 years you will be good at it.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Jan 7, 2011
    #4
  5. On 07/01/2011 12:14 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 07-01-2011 04:57, wiesin wrote:
    >> can seasoned developer teach me how to study java

    >
    > Read some books about Java.
    >
    > And practice.
    >
    > After 5-10 years you will be good at it.


    I disagree. In 5 years, they'll radically change everything you need to
    know to be a Java programmer and you're back to square one. :)
    Travers Naran, Jan 8, 2011
    #5
  6. wiesin

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 08-01-2011 03:25, Travers Naran wrote:
    > On 07/01/2011 12:14 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 07-01-2011 04:57, wiesin wrote:
    >>> can seasoned developer teach me how to study java

    >>
    >> Read some books about Java.
    >>
    >> And practice.
    >>
    >> After 5-10 years you will be good at it.

    >
    > I disagree. In 5 years, they'll radically change everything you need to
    > know to be a Java programmer and you're back to square one. :)


    Not at all.

    Java is pretty good at keeping compatible, so old stuff will
    still work.

    And Java is somewhat mature, so it is not changing so
    fast anymore.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Jan 8, 2011
    #6
  7. On 08/01/2011 11:04 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 08-01-2011 03:25, Travers Naran wrote:
    >> I disagree. In 5 years, they'll radically change everything you need to
    >> know to be a Java programmer and you're back to square one. :)

    >
    > Not at all.
    >
    > Java is pretty good at keeping compatible, so old stuff will
    > still work.


    Java EE 6 has started clearing out the cruft. Old stuff will start to
    break soon.

    > And Java is somewhat mature, so it is not changing so
    > fast anymore.


    So far, it seems like it. *knocks on wood*

    But as we learn more as a programming community, Java will have to
    evolve to keep up.
    Travers Naran, Jan 8, 2011
    #7
  8. wiesin

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 08-01-2011 17:14, Travers Naran wrote:
    > On 08/01/2011 11:04 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 08-01-2011 03:25, Travers Naran wrote:
    >>> I disagree. In 5 years, they'll radically change everything you need to
    >>> know to be a Java programmer and you're back to square one. :)

    >>
    >> Not at all.
    >>
    >> Java is pretty good at keeping compatible, so old stuff will
    >> still work.

    >
    > Java EE 6 has started clearing out the cruft. Old stuff will start to
    > break soon.


    Really?

    AFAIK they have not removed any functionality.

    They have deprecated entity beans 1.1 (from 1999) and
    are saying that entity beans 2.x (from 2001) may be deprecated
    in next version.

    And if we assume that new Java EE specs will come out with
    3 years interval then:

    entity beans 1.1
    invented 1999
    replacement entity beans 2.x invented 2001
    deprecated 2009
    removed 2012

    entity beans 2.x
    invented 2001
    replacement JPA invented 2006
    deprecated 2012
    removed 2015

    Which is not bad. That is approx. 10 years from replacement API
    shows up to they disappear.

    >> And Java is somewhat mature, so it is not changing so
    >> fast anymore.

    >
    > So far, it seems like it. *knocks on wood*
    >
    > But as we learn more as a programming community, Java will have to
    > evolve to keep up.


    I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    longer than slowly evolving languages.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Jan 9, 2011
    #8
  9. Re: how to study java

    On Jan 7, 10:57 am, wiesin <> wrote:
    > can seasoned developer teach me how to study java
    > Thanks!


    Maybe javablackbelt.com can be a guide for you. There you can do e-
    coached courses and exams which are both provided by the community.
    Give it a try when you were learning Java from the basics on, or even
    when you will master the different Java API's.

    Mike
    AnAnAsbAnAnAshAkAr, Jan 9, 2011
    #9
  10. On 08/01/2011 4:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >
    > I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    > longer than slowly evolving languages.


    LISP
    Travers Naran, Jan 9, 2011
    #10
  11. wiesin

    Lew Guest

    On 01/09/2011 02:28 AM, Travers Naran wrote:
    > On 08/01/2011 4:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>
    >> I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    >> longer than slowly evolving languages.

    >
    > LISP


    Fortran.

    --
    Lew
    Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
    Lew, Jan 9, 2011
    #11
  12. "Lew" <> wrote in message
    news:igbojf$4oe$...
    > On 01/09/2011 02:28 AM, Travers Naran wrote:
    >> On 08/01/2011 4:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    >>> longer than slowly evolving languages.

    >>
    >> LISP

    >
    > Fortran.


    COBOL
    Mike Schilling, Jan 9, 2011
    #12
  13. On 09-01-2011 03:07, Mike Schilling wrote:
    > "Lew" <> wrote in message
    > news:igbojf$4oe$...
    >> On 01/09/2011 02:28 AM, Travers Naran wrote:
    >>> On 08/01/2011 4:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    >>>> longer than slowly evolving languages.
    >>>
    >>> LISP

    >>
    >> Fortran.

    >
    > COBOL


    ????

    Lisp is only standardized once.

    Fortran takes at average 10 years between each new version.

    Cobol about the same.

    So I see them as good examples of very slow evolving and very
    long living languages.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Jan 9, 2011
    #13
  14. wiesin

    Lew Guest

    On 01/09/2011 10:29 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 09-01-2011 03:07, Mike Schilling wrote:
    >> "Lew" <> wrote in message
    >> news:igbojf$4oe$...
    >>> On 01/09/2011 02:28 AM, Travers Naran wrote:
    >>>> On 08/01/2011 4:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    >>>>> longer than slowly evolving languages.
    >>>>
    >>>> LISP
    >>>
    >>> Fortran.

    >>
    >> COBOL

    >
    > ????
    >
    > Lisp is only standardized once.
    >
    > Fortran takes at average 10 years between each new version.
    >
    > Cobol about the same.
    >
    > So I see them as good examples of very slow evolving and very
    > long living languages.


    Exactly so. We are evidencing your point. I proffered Fortran as an example
    of exactly what you said.

    --
    Lew
    Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
    Lew, Jan 9, 2011
    #14
  15. "Lew" <> wrote in message
    news:igcm6u$gi7$...
    > On 01/09/2011 10:29 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 09-01-2011 03:07, Mike Schilling wrote:
    >>> "Lew" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:igbojf$4oe$...
    >>>> On 01/09/2011 02:28 AM, Travers Naran wrote:
    >>>>> On 08/01/2011 4:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    >>>>>> longer than slowly evolving languages.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> LISP
    >>>>
    >>>> Fortran.
    >>>
    >>> COBOL

    >>
    >> ????
    >>
    >> Lisp is only standardized once.
    >>
    >> Fortran takes at average 10 years between each new version.
    >>
    >> Cobol about the same.
    >>
    >> So I see them as good examples of very slow evolving and very
    >> long living languages.

    >
    > Exactly so. We are evidencing your point. I proffered Fortran as an
    > example of exactly what you said.


    Yup. COBOL will live long enough to create a Y10K problem.
    Mike Schilling, Jan 9, 2011
    #15
  16. On 09/01/2011 7:29 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 09-01-2011 03:07, Mike Schilling wrote:
    >> "Lew" <> wrote in message
    >> news:igbojf$4oe$...
    >>> On 01/09/2011 02:28 AM, Travers Naran wrote:
    >>>> On 08/01/2011 4:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    >>>>> longer than slowly evolving languages.
    >>>>
    >>>> LISP
    >>>
    >>> Fortran.

    >>
    >> COBOL

    >
    > ????
    >
    > Lisp is only standardized once.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)#Historically_significant_dialects

    Standardized once, but hardly slowly evolving.

    > Fortran takes at average 10 years between each new version.


    That's still pretty fast evolution for a language. The C family
    (C/C++/etc.) don't seem to update as frequently as FORTRAN. You can
    write programs in modern FORTRAN that don't look like anything in the
    original FORTRAN.

    > Cobol about the same.


    Slowly evolving and continuing its slow decline.
    Travers Naran, Jan 10, 2011
    #16
  17. wiesin

    Lew Guest

    Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>>>> I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    >>>>>> longer than slowly evolving languages.


    Travers Naran wrote:
    >>>>> LISP

    .. . .
    Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> Lisp is only standardized once.


    Travers Naran wrote:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)#Historically_significant_dialects
    >
    >
    > Standardized once, but hardly slowly evolving.


    Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> Fortran takes at average 10 years between each new version.


    Travers Naran wrote:
    > That's still pretty fast evolution for a language. The C family (C/C++/etc.)
    > don't seem to update as frequently as FORTRAN.


    "Don't seem"? This is a matter of objectively verifiable fact.

    C: C++: Fortran:
    1957
    1958
    1961
    1966
    1972
    1977
    1978
    1985
    1988
    1989
    1991
    1995
    1998
    1999
    2003 2003
    2005
    2008


    [snip]
    Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> Cobol about the same.


    Travers Naran wrote:
    > Slowly evolving and continuing its slow decline.


    Is it declining, slowly or otherwise? Is it going away?

    --
    Lew
    Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
    Lew, Jan 10, 2011
    #17
  18. On 10/01/2011 6:25 AM, Lew wrote:
    > Travers Naran wrote:
    >> That's still pretty fast evolution for a language. The C family
    >> (C/C++/etc.)
    >> don't seem to update as frequently as FORTRAN.

    >
    > "Don't seem"? This is a matter of objectively verifiable fact.


    I wasn't saying C doesn't evolve, I was merely comparing evolution rates
    to show FORTRAN is a "fast" evolving language even though it only
    updates every 8-10 years.

    > [snip]
    > Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>> Cobol about the same.

    >
    > Travers Naran wrote:
    >> Slowly evolving and continuing its slow decline.

    >
    > Is it declining, slowly or otherwise? Is it going away?


    Depends on who you ask:
    Declining:
    http://www.infoworld.com/t/career-advice/how-interpret-cobol-statistics-944
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9062478/Confessions_of_a_Cobol_programmer

    Not Declining:
    http://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2010/07/ibm-mainframes-cobol-recruits.aspx
    Travers Naran, Jan 10, 2011
    #18
  19. runningOnEmpty, Jan 10, 2011
    #19
  20. On 09-01-2011 23:07, Travers Naran wrote:
    > On 09/01/2011 7:29 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 09-01-2011 03:07, Mike Schilling wrote:
    >>> "Lew" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:igbojf$4oe$...
    >>>> On 01/09/2011 02:28 AM, Travers Naran wrote:
    >>>>> On 08/01/2011 4:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don't see any evidence of fast evolving languages living
    >>>>>> longer than slowly evolving languages.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> LISP
    >>>>
    >>>> Fortran.
    >>>
    >>> COBOL

    >>
    >> ????
    >>
    >> Lisp is only standardized once.

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)#Historically_significant_dialects
    >
    > Standardized once, but hardly slowly evolving.


    I find it difficult to see a link to a bunch of things which
    mostly seems to be 10-30 years old to be an indication of
    evolvement.


    >> Fortran takes at average 10 years between each new version.

    >
    > That's still pretty fast evolution for a language.


    Not compared to Java, C# etc..

    > The C family
    > (C/C++/etc.) don't seem to update as frequently as FORTRAN.


    But they do.

    C: 89, 99, 1X on its way

    C++: 98, 0X on its way

    > You can
    > write programs in modern FORTRAN that don't look like anything in the
    > original FORTRAN.


    77->90 added a lot of new features, but after 30 years it may
    have been time for a major lift.

    >> Cobol about the same.

    >
    > Slowly evolving and continuing its slow decline.


    It is still very widely used.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Jan 10, 2011
    #20
    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. fishfry
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    738
    Doug Schwartz
    Feb 19, 2004
  2. Cycloneous Echevarria

    Java 2 Certification - how long to study for it?

    Cycloneous Echevarria, Feb 23, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    627
    Tom Adams
    Feb 24, 2004
  3. Leonardo Maranh?o
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    976
    Andrew Thompson
    Nov 22, 2004
  4. grappletech
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    753
    Gernot Frisch
    Nov 28, 2006
  5. consultant
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    385
    Consultant
    May 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page