Instance java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on OO Tumia

[Paka Small]

Hi,

You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directory Tumia:
http://www.tumia.org/en/directory/en/java.lang.object.getclass()_p1.html
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use the Tumia Instance combobox to select another Instance or
- use the Tumia Class combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.

Kind regards, Paka Small

 

[Daniel Pitts]

Hi,

You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directory Tumia: [redacted]
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use the Tumia Instance combobox to select another Instance or
- use the Tumia Class combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.

Kind regards, Paka Small

What kind of spamming is this? Those aren't instances, they are called
methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.

 

[Jeff Higgins]

What kind of spamming is this?
The kind sifted by my news server's filters.
I wonder why they missed HOT ACTRESS...

 

[Paka Small]

Hi Daniel,

Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
.. I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its called
Java reflection. I find it strange that in a programming group you put
out with such vigour your statement that is totally incorrect. My
statement (a method is also a class which has method instances) is
proven by the Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of
professional software development experience. What are the references
for your statement?

The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
Tumia framework a particular Java method like
java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
you GRASP it?

Kind regards,

Paka

Hi,

You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directory Tumia: [redacted]
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use the Tumia Instance combobox to select another Instance or
- use the Tumia Class combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.

Kind regards, Paka Small

What kind of spamming is this?  Those aren't instances, they are called
methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.

 

[Paka Small]

Hi Daniel,

Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
.. I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its called
Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA programming group
you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a
method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional
software development experience. What are the references for your
statement?

The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
Tumia framework a particular Java method like
java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
you GRASP it?

Kind regards,

Paka

Hi,

You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directoryTumia: [redacted]
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
- use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.

Kind regards, Paka Small

What kind of spamming is this?  Those aren't instances, they are called
methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.

 

[Lew]

Hi Daniel,

Please do not top-post. Post inline.

Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html

That is not correct. A method is not a class. The class 'Method' is a class,
but it is not a method.

. I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its [sic] called

I suggest you be less snarky, especially when you are wrong.

Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA [sic] programming group

I find it strange that you cop such a strong attitude when you're wrong, and
cannot even spell "Java" correctly.

you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a

No, he was totally correct.

method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional

No, it is not. A method is not a class. The 'Method' class is a class, but it
is not a method.

software development experience. What are the references for your
statement?

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

Your "20 years of professional software development experience" has, sadly,
left you with much arrogance and zero knowledge.

In Java, as you will see from reading the Java Language Specification linked
above, which is the normative reference for the language definition, methods
and classes are not the same.

The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
Tumia framework a particular Java method like
java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
you GRASP it?

What is a "Tumia Class [sic]"? I don't see anything good about the idea you
propose.

You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directoryTumia: [redacted]
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
- use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.

What kind of spamming is this?  Those aren't instances, they are called
methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous..

+1, Daniel

 

[Paka Small]

Please do not top-post. Post inline.


That is not correct.  A method is not a class.  The class 'Method' isa class,
but it is not a method.

Please lets retake Daniels statement "Those aren't instances, they are
called methods." (lets call this statement A). From
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
one gets that a method (for example getClass()) in Java is an instance
of the class Method. Lets call the latter B. A and B clearly are
contradictions. Therefore since Java is true about itself (and I can
testify Java reflection exists since I wrote code using method
instances) the statement of Daniel is false.

Kind regards, Paka

. I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its [sic] called

I suggest you be less snarky, especially when you are wrong.

Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA [sic] programming group

I find it strange that you cop such a strong attitude when you're wrong, and
cannot even spell "Java" correctly.

you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a

No, he was totally correct.

method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional

No, it is not.  A method is not a class.  The 'Method' class is a class, but it
is not a method.

software development experience. What are the references for your
statement?

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that a Java
method is not an instance of the class Method. If you believe I will
try find to find a statement in a large document while as far as I
know that statement is simply not there you must be kidding. Please
prove your point and pinpoint the statement.

Your "20 years of professional software development experience" has, sadly,
left you with much arrogance and zero knowledge.

In Java, as you will see from reading the Java Language Specification linked
above, which is the normative reference for the language definition, methods
and classes are not the same.

The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
Tumia framework a particular Java method like
java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
you GRASP it?

What is a "Tumia Class [sic]"?  I don't see anything good about the idea you
propose.

On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directoryTumia:
[redacted]
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
- use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
What kind of spamming is this?  Those aren't instances, they are called
methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.

+1, Daniel

 

[Lew]

Would you please stop top-posting? Please? This is a second request.

Respond in line.

Please lets retake Daniels statement "Those aren't instances, they are
called methods." (lets call this statement A). From

Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your blatant misrepresentation
that methods are classes, and a fair one.

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
one gets that a method (for example getClass()) in Java is an instance
of the class Method. Lets call the latter B. A and B clearly are

No, one does not. Nowhere does it state that. 'Method' is a class used to _describe_ methods; it is not itself a method. A method is _described_ by the type 'Method'; it is not itself a type.

contradictions. Therefore since Java is true about itself (and I can

There's nothing contradictory because your statement B is flat-out wrong.

"Java is true about itself" is a meaningless phrase - Java is defined by the
Java Language Specification, which apparently you do not choose to read.

testify Java reflection exists since I wrote code using method
instances) the statement of Daniel is false.

Wrong. You used 'Method' instances, not "method instances", which _described_
but were not themselves methods. Daniel's statement was correct; yours are not.

I refer you again to the language specification, which you have apparently
disregarded.
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

. I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its [sic] called

I suggest you be less snarky, especially when you are wrong.

Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA [sic] programming group

I find it strange that you cop such a strong attitude when you're wrong, and
cannot even spell "Java" correctly.

you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a

No, he was totally correct.

method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional

No, it is not.  A method is not a class.  The 'Method' class is a class, but it
is not a method.

software development experience. What are the references for your
statement?

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that a Java
method is not an instance of the class Method. If you believe I will
try find to find a statement in a large document while as far as I
know that statement is simply not there you must be kidding. Please
prove your point and pinpoint the statement.

Your "20 years of professional software development experience" has, sadly,
left you with much arrogance and zero knowledge.

In Java, as you will see from reading the Java Language Specification linked
above, which is the normative reference for the language definition, methods
and classes are not the same.

The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
Tumia framework a particular Java method like
java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
you GRASP it?

What is a "Tumia Class [sic]"?  I don't see anything good about the idea you
propose.

On 25 jan, 20:23, Daniel Pitts <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directoryTumia:
[redacted]
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
- use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
What kind of spamming is this?  Those aren't instances, they are called
methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.

+1, Daniel

 

[Lew]

Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that a Java
method is not an instance of the class Method. If you believe I will
try find to find a statement in a large document while as far as I
know that statement is simply not there you must be kidding. Please
prove your point and pinpoint the statement.

You must be kidding if you cannot follow a table of contents in a document with
which, as a self-professed Java "expert" you had better darned well already be
familiar, to the definitions of classes and methods, whose locations are
clearly indicated and linked from that table of contents.

The burden of proof is on you not us to show where it states anywhere that a
method is an instance of the class 'Method' (good luck - it doesn't). I've
shown you where the answer lies, in a document that you'd better use if you
want to make any point about the nature of Java.

Ignorance is excusable. Willful ignorance such as yours is not. Read the
material. If you think your statements can hold any merit without reference to
the reference, you're the one who's delusional.

 

[Paka Small]

Would you please stop top-posting? Please? This is a second request.

Respond in line.

Please lets retake Daniels statement "Those aren't instances, they are
called methods." (lets call this statement A). From

Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your blatant misrepresentation
that methods are classes, and a fair one.

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
one gets that a method (for example getClass()) in Java is an instance
of the class Method. Lets call the latter B. A and B clearly are

No, one does not. Nowhere does it state that. 'Method' is a class used to_describe_ methods; it is not itself a method. A method is _described_ by the type 'Method'; it is not itself a type.

contradictions. Therefore since Java is true about itself (and I can

There's nothing contradictory because your statement B is flat-out wrong.

"Java is true about itself" is a meaningless phrase - Java is defined by the
Java Language Specification, which apparently you do not choose to read.

testify Java reflection exists since I wrote code using method
instances) the statement of Daniel is false.

Wrong. You used 'Method' instances, not "method instances", which _described_
but were not themselves methods. Daniel's statement was correct; yours are not.

I refer you again to the language specification, which you have apparently
disregarded.http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

. I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its [sic]called
I suggest you be less snarky, especially when you are wrong.
Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA [sic] programminggroup
I find it strange that you cop such a strong attitude when you're wrong, and
cannot even spell "Java" correctly.
you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a
No, he was totally correct.
method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional
No, it is not.  A method is not a class.  The 'Method' class is aclass, but it
is not a method.
software development experience. What are the references for your
statement?
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that a Java
method is not an instance of the class Method. If you believe I will
try find to find a statement in a large document while as far as I
know that statement is simply not there you must be kidding. Please
prove your point and pinpoint the statement.

Your "20 years of professional software development experience" has, sadly,
left you with much arrogance and zero knowledge.
In Java, as you will see from reading the Java Language Specificationlinked
above, which is the normative reference for the language definition, methods
and classes are not the same.
The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
Tumia framework a particular Java method like
java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
you GRASP it?
What is a "Tumia Class [sic]"?  I don't see anything good about theidea you
propose.
On 25 jan, 20:23, Daniel Pitts <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directoryTumia:
[redacted]
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
- use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
What kind of spamming is this?  Those aren't instances, they are called
methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.
+1, Daniel

Dear Lew,

You write "> Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your
blatant misrepresentation

that methods are classes, and a fair one.". Nowhere and never I have stated that methods are classes. Please have the decency not to put words in mymouth!

Kind regards, Paka

 

[Lew]

You write "> Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your
blatant misrepresentation

You put these words in your own mouth: "My statement (a method is also a class
which has method instances) is proven by the Oracle Java link above and backed
up with 20 years of professional software development experience."

I did not lack decency. I was merely stating a fact. That was your statement,
and it is not true.

You also said: "Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that
a Java method is not an instance of the class Method." Not true.

You also excoriated Daniel's post, saying, "you put out with such vigour your
statement ('Those aren't instances, they are called methods.') that is totally
incorrect." Not true.

You put these statements forward. I copied and pasted them into this post. I
did not make them up. You said them.

How strange that you now deny saying them. Still, they're a matter of public
record so there's no denying responsibility.

 

[Paka Small]

You put these words in your own mouth: "My statement (a method is also a class
which has method instances) is proven by the Oracle Java link above and backed
up with 20 years of professional software development experience."

I did not lack decency. I was merely stating a fact. That was your statement,
and it is not true.

You also said: "Please can you pinpoint where in this document is writtenthat
a Java method is not an instance of the class Method." Not true.

You also excoriated Daniel's post, saying, "you put out with such vigour your
statement ('Those aren't instances, they are called methods.') that is totally
incorrect."  Not true.

You put these statements forward. I copied and pasted them into this post.. I
did not make them up. You said them.

How strange that you now deny saying them. Still, they're a matter of public
record so there's no denying responsibility.

Hi,

Example code proving beyond any doubt that a method is an instance of
the class java.lang.reflect.Method in Java:

public final void setValue(BaseObject baseObject, Object value) {
java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;
try {
setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});
} catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (SecurityException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
}
try {
setMethod.invoke(baseObject, new Object[]{value});
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
}
}

Kind regards, Paka

 

[Lew]

Example code proving beyond any doubt that a method is an instance of
the class java.lang.reflect.Method in Java:

No, it doesn't. Again, the Java Language Specification defines methods and
objects, and they are not the same thing. I have pointed you to it.

public final void setValue(BaseObject baseObject, Object value) {
java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;

'setMethod' is a variable, not a method.

try {
setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});
} catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (SecurityException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
}
try {
setMethod.invoke(baseObject, new Object[]{value});

'invoke()' is a method.

} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
}
}

How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?

All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe
and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows, let
alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class. It
couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.

 

[Paka Small]

Example code proving beyond any doubt that a method is an instance of
the class java.lang.reflect.Method in Java:

No, it doesn't. Again, the Java Language Specification defines methods and
objects, and they are not the same thing. I have pointed you to it.

  public final void setValue(BaseObject baseObject, Object value) {
    java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;

'setMethod' is a variable, not a method.

    try {
      setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});
      } catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
      } catch (SecurityException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
      }
    try {
      setMethod.invoke(baseObject, new Object[]{value});

'invoke()' is a method.

    } catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
    } catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
    } catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
    }
  }

How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?

All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe
and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows,let
alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class.It
couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.

Hi,

Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method and that a method of a class is actually
assigned to setMethod in this statement:
setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});

Kind regards, Paka

 

[Mayeul]

Example code proving beyond any doubt that a method is an instance of
the class java.lang.reflect.Method in Java:

No, it doesn't. Again, the Java Language Specification defines methods and
objects, and they are not the same thing. I have pointed you to it.

public final void setValue(BaseObject baseObject, Object value) {
java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;

'setMethod' is a variable, not a method.

try {
setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});
} catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (SecurityException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
}
try {
setMethod.invoke(baseObject, new Object[]{value});

'invoke()' is a method.

} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
} catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {

Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
}
}

How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?

All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe
and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows, let
alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class. It
couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.

Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method

Indeed, it certainly does.

and that a method of a class is actually
assigned to setMethod in this statement:
setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});

No, it does not show anything of the sort.

setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be assigned
to anything anyway.)

Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class, are
never methods. And methods are never instances of any class, whatever
the class.

 

[Eric Sosman]

Hi Daniel,

Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
[...]

You have confused "method" and "java.lang.reflect.Method". (In
a similar vein, you have confused "class" and "java.lang.Class".)
A method is not a class, nor a Method, nor a Class.

 

[Lew]

Indeed, it certainly does.

Not even close, Paka. How do you continue to get this wrong?

You have been shown the truth. You've been shown the documentation for the
truth, about which you got very snarky indeed: "I'm too lazy to read the
documentation but I'm going to argue for the wrong answer anyway."

setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});

No, it does not show anything of the sort.

setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be assigned
to anything anyway.)

As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.

Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class, are
never methods. And methods are never instances of any class, whatever
the class.

As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Why don't you just break down
and read the documentation?

Summary: What your code proves is that a variable points to an instance of a
class. It does not show that a method is an instance of a class. At no point
does your code show any treatment of any method as a class instance.

Get this right or get out of programming, Paka. "20 years of professional
software development experience" is only worth something if you let your
experience teach you something. Time to start learning, Paka.

 

[Paka Small]

Indeed, it certainly does.

Not even close, Paka. How do you continue to get this wrong?

You have been shown the truth. You've been shown the documentation for the
truth, about which you got very snarky indeed: "I'm too lazy to read the
documentation but I'm going to argue for the wrong answer anyway."

setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});

No, it does not show anything of the sort.

setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be assigned
to anything anyway.)

As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.

Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class, are
never methods. And methods are never instances of any class, whatever
the class.

As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Why don't you just break down
and read the documentation?

Summary: What your code proves is that a variable points to an instance of a
class. It does not show that a method is an instance of a class. At no point
does your code show any treatment of any method as a class instance.

Get this right or get out of programming, Paka. "20 years of professional
software development experience" is only worth something if you let your
experience teach you something. Time to start learning, Paka.

Hi,

"java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;" and "setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});" from the example code proof a method is an
instance of the class java.lang.reflect.Method .

Kind regards, Paka

 

[Daniel Pitts]

Paka Small wrote:
Lew wrote:
How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class
instance?

All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can
describe
and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that
shows, let
alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a
class. It
couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.
Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method
Indeed, it certainly does.

and that a method of a class is actually
assigned to setMethod in this statement:

Not even close, Paka. How do you continue to get this wrong?

You have been shown the truth. You've been shown the documentation for
the truth, about which you got very snarky indeed: "I'm too lazy to
read the documentation but I'm going to argue for the wrong answer
anyway."

setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});
No, it does not show anything of the sort.

setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be
assigned to anything anyway.)

As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.

Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class,
are never methods. And methods are never instances of any class,
whatever the class.

As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Why don't you just
break down and read the documentation?

Summary: What your code proves is that a variable points to an
instance of a class. It does not show that a method is an instance of
a class. At no point does your code show any treatment of any method
as a class instance.

Get this right or get out of programming, Paka. "20 years of
professional software development experience" is only worth something
if you let your experience teach you something. Time to start
learning, Paka.

Does Paka really believe that decades of software development experience
are a good predictor of correctness on this type of issue?

If so, the matter is easily settled. I don't know the total combined
experience of the people who have publicly disagreed, but I know it is a
lot longer that 20 years, I have over 30 years of professional software
development experience myself, and I know a lot of the other posters are
very experienced programmers.

I've been programming for at least 22 years personally. I've even
created my own programming languages. Something I doubt Paka has done
given his apparent lack of understanding of fundamentals of language
design.

 

[Lew]

"java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;" and "setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});" from the example code proof a method is an
instance of the class java.lang.reflect.Method .

No, sir, as many have told you, that it does not.

That shows that the variable 'setMethod' is a reference to a class instance. It
does not show that any method is an instance. You don't turn the variable
'setMethod' into a method just by putting 'Method' in its name.

'setMethod' is not a method.

Please read and study the referenced documentation for the definition of a
method.

The definition of a method:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/classes.html#8.4

The definition of an object:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/typesValues.html#4.3
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/typesValues.html#4.3.1

They are quite different.