Java Programming Best Practices

[clusardi2k]

I have a dozen books on java, but no book specifically on best practices. What do you think. Will some thing short suffice.

Thank you,

 

[Eric Sosman]

I have a dozen books on java, but no book specifically on best practices. What do you think. Will some thing short suffice.

I like "Effective Java" by Josh Bloch. This book is about
best practices down in the trenches: How to write good Java code
and what to avoid that would make it less good. It's not much
concerned with best practices at the Big Picture level -- system
design, data integrity and security, etc. -- but an excellent
resource at the let's-write-some-code level.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I have a dozen books on java, but no book specifically on best practices. What do you think. Will some thing short suffice.

Best practices of exactly what?

If it is general Java coding techniques, then I completely agree
with Eric's recommendation of "Effective Java".

But if it is web apps, XML, web services, EJB's, multithreaded
or any other specialized topic, then other books may be relevant.

Arne

 

[Roedy Green]

I like "Effective Java" by Josh Bloch.

ditto. http://mindprod.com/book/9780321356680.html
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.
~ Dr. Albert A. Bartlett (born: 1923-03-21 age: 89)

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

ditto. http://mindprod.com/book/9780321356680.html

It is not difficult to Google.

Of course Google would produce links without
referrals.

Arne

 

[Philip Brown]

mindprod.com has the best overall advice about Java, minus a few glitches here
and there but always well meant.

Please don't spread hate propaganda.

When any site makes statements, in its top paragraph no less, such as

"XYZ is the #1 source of evil on the planet today." against a group of people collectively, that is pretty much the definition of hatred, prejudice, and bigotry.

Pretty ironic and hypocritical, given that I'm guessing they would claim they are "fighting hatred and intolerance".


To the curious reader:
If you cannot agree with the above statement as-is, and have to check specifically what the "XYZ" above is, to say "Well, if it's (this) group, its okay, but if it's (that) group, well, that's just bigoted"...
that in itself would be hypocritical.

 

[Lew]

Please don't spread hate propaganda.

I said, "about Java", and I am not spreading hate propaganda here.

When any site makes statements, in its top paragraph no less, such as

"XYZ is the #1 source of evil on the planet today." against a group of people collectively, that is pretty much the definition of hatred, prejudice, and bigotry.

If "XYZ" is a racial, ethnic or gender distinction you're right. If "XYZ" is
someone or group of someones excoriated for their choices, not their inherent
being, you're wrong.

Pretty ironic and hypocritical, given that I'm guessing they would claim they are "fighting hatred and intolerance".


To the curious reader:
If you cannot agree with the above statement as-is, and have to check specifically what the "XYZ" above is, to say "Well, if it's (this) group, its okay, but if it's (that) group, well, that's just bigoted"...
that in itself would be hypocritical.

Bullcrap.

You fail to distinguish hate speech, which targets people based on their
inherent characteristics, from criticism, which targets people based on their
actions.

You don't get to simplistically sloganize morality and lock everyone else into
your idiolectic definitions.

I stand by my claim that Roedy's site gives generally decent information about
Java. Agree or disagree with his politics, but if you're going to accuse him
of "hate propaganda", you'd better be ready to back that up with actual
evidence, not vague handwaving and slander about political discourse with
which you personally happen to disagree.

 

[Philip Brown]

If "XYZ" is a racial, ethnic or gender distinction you're right. If "XYZ" is
someone or group of someones excoriated for their choices, not their inherent
being, you're wrong.

So you're saying it's wrong to be bigoted against people because of ethnicity or gender, but its perfectly fine for any other reason.
And words like " I would be interested in hearing your ideas about would could be done to help eliminate XYZ", and comparing that group of people, to a disease, is just fine.
Interesting.

Personally, my view is that if bigotry is wrong, then it's wrong for any and all reasons.
(In the same way that if someone is for "free speech", they should support speech they dont agree with... if someone is against bigotry, they should be uniformly against it, even when directed against groups they dont personally like)


Let's try this for size:

"Hindus are a crazy messed up people. They're like a disease. Let's do everything we can to eliminate Hinduism from the planet."

Whether or not you agree with the statement, do you think that is hate speech?

If you do, you're a hypocrite, since you said it wasnt when directed against a DIFFERENT group of people. If you dont think so... you might want to get a second opinion from someone outside your normal circle of acquaintances.

PS:

You fail to distinguish hate speech, which targets people based on their
inherent characteristics, from criticism, which targets people based on their
actions.

hate speech is hate speech, no matter whether it's directed at "inherent characteristics", or "I hate everyone whose first name starts with the letter Q"

Legal != moral. Legally,I can go stand up in a public square and rant about how much I hate people who have names starting with Q. Clearly, that's hate speech, even though there is no legal recognition of it.

But even from a legal standpoint, religion is a protected characteristic, so that site is clearly engaging in hate speech.

 

[Lew]

So you're saying it's wrong to be bigoted against people because of ethnicity or gender, but its perfectly fine for any other reason.

I did not say that.

You misquoted me.

I said nothing about whether it's right to be bigoted. Instead, thank you for
disingenuously misstating my point, I said that it is not bigotry to castigate
someone for their behavior.

You are engaging in begging the question and straw-man arguments.

And not talking about

And words like " I would be interested in hearing your ideas about would could be done to help eliminate XYZ", and comparing that group of people, to a disease, is just fine.
Interesting.

Personally, my view is that if bigotry is wrong, then it's wrong for any and all reasons.
(In the same way that if someone is for "free speech", they should support speech they dont agree with... if someone is against bigotry, they should be uniformly against it, even when directed against groups they dont personally like)

Fine, if we were discussing someone's bigotry, which we aren't.

We're discussing Roedy's political statements, which are not bigoted.

Let's try this for size:

"Hindus are a crazy messed up people. They're like a disease. Let's do everything we can to eliminate Hinduism from the planet."

Whether or not you agree with the statement, do you think that is hate speech?

If you do, you're a hypocrite, since you said it wasnt when directed against a DIFFERENT group of people. If you dont think so... you might want to get a second opinion from someone outside your normal circle of acquaintances.

I never said any such thing. You made that up out of whole cloth.

PS:


hate speech is hate speech, no matter whether it's directed at "inherent characteristics", or "I hate everyone whose first name starts with the letter Q"

You are like Humpty Dumpty in _Through the Looking Glass_: "When I use a word,
it means exactly what I choose it to mean, no more, no less."

But your definitions happen to be wrong.

Hate speech is hate speech, as you so circularly claim, but speech excoriating
someone's actions is not hate speech.

You don't get to just make up your own definitions.

Legal != moral. Legally,I can go stand up in a public square and rant about how much I hate people who have names starting with Q. Clearly, that's hate speech, even though there is no legal recognition of it.

Wonderful _non sequitur_, absolutely impressive in its irrelevancy.

But even from a legal standpoint, religion is a protected characteristic, so that site is clearly engaging in hate speech.

Huh? Religion?

And religion is a matter of choice, so one is perfectly free to speak against
the practices of any relgion, including even atheism.

Otherwise statements like, "That church stole gazillions from gullible poor
people" would be hate speech, which it isn't, or "That other church engages in
hate speech" would be hate speech, which it isn't.

You continue to slander Roedy's site with no basis.

You need to stop using incorrect definitions, and you definitely need to stop
derailing Java conversations with your trollery.

Please, I ask politely, go back on topic or shut the frak up.

 

[Robert Klemme]

On 07/22/2012 01:43 PM, Philip Brown wrote:

Huh? Religion?

And religion is a matter of choice, so one is perfectly free to speak
against the practices of any relgion, including even atheism.

I think you are arguing from very different legal systems here. If
anything, Philip you should mention the legal basis you are arguing
from. The US, for example and as far as I know, are strictly liberal
when it comes to freedom of speech. In the US you are allowed to say
things which are banned, for example, in Germany (for historic reasons).

I don't think Roedy's statements qualify as hate speech (and I come from
Germany which has a more restrictive approach to freedom of speech).
Whether you think those claims are true or not, or even good to have
that on the site is a totally different question.

Cheers

robert

 

[Daniel Pitts]

It is not difficult to Google.

Of course Google would produce links without
referrals.

And yet, google would still somehow make money on the search. Perhaps
its not a bad thing to link to a relevant page which also provides the
linker with some financial incentive to link in the first place?

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

And yet, google would still somehow make money on the search.

Of course. I think most people understand that Google is a business
and that they make money from ads.

Perhaps
its not a bad thing to link to a relevant page which also provides the
linker with some financial incentive to link in the first place?

I am not generally against people making money on being helpful.

If Roedy has been the first to suggest that book with the link
and the page had contained a note explaining that he would make
money if the reader clicked the link and bought the book then
I would certainly not have posted anything.

If just one of the these has been the case, then I would
probably not have posted either.

But trying to make money from usenet without really
providing any help and hiding that one is making money
is a tad too greedy in my book.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

And yet, google would still somehow make money on the search.

Of course. I think most people understand that Google is a business
and that they make money from ads.

Perhaps
its not a bad thing to link to a relevant page which also provides the
linker with some financial incentive to link in the first place?

I am not generally against people making money on being helpful.

If Roedy has been the first to suggest that book with the link
and the page had contained a note explaining that he would make
money if the reader clicked the link and bought the book then
I would certainly not have posted anything.

If just one of the these has been the case, then I would
probably not have posted either.

But trying to make money from usenet without really
providing any help and hiding that one is making money
is a tad too greedy in my book.

Arne

 

[markspace]

I don't think Roedy's statements qualify as hate speech (and I come from
Germany which has a more restrictive approach to freedom of speech).

Furthermore I recall that Roedy lives in Canada, and maintains his web
presence there, complicating the whole "US law" thing even more. (What
treaties exist to cover speech? I don't know.)

 

[Eric Sosman]

I think you are arguing from very different legal systems here. If
anything, Philip you should mention the legal basis you are arguing
from. The US, for example and as far as I know, are strictly liberal
when it comes to freedom of speech. In the US you are allowed to say
things which are banned, for example, in Germany (for historic reasons).

I don't think Roedy's statements qualify as hate speech (and I come from
Germany which has a more restrictive approach to freedom of speech).
Whether you think those claims are true or not, or even good to have
that on the site is a totally different question.

Here's something I know about R.G.: He favors vigilantism
and vandalism as a means of regulating the Internet. See the
thread he started this past Valentine's Day titled "the Olson
Timezone Database," in which he writes (apparently in haste, but
he reaffirmed his position in follow-ups):

"A hope Anonymous soon gets round to putting these
unprintables out of business."

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

Furthermore I recall that Roedy lives in Canada, and maintains his web
presence there, complicating the whole "US law" thing even more. (What
treaties exist to cover speech? I don't know.)

There's some blathering about freedom of speech in the UN Declaration of
Human Rights, but it's vague on where freedom of speech stops. The
Durham Conference produced a toothless document a few years ago, but
considering that several notable countries boycotted, it's not really
worth talking about.

The US has extremely liberal free speech laws--hate speech is actually
protected free speech here; considering that, e.g., Arab countries have
attempted to push for making defamation against (read: criticism of)
religion not-free speech, it's very doubtful that any treaty the US
would agree to would be tenable to the rest of the world.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I did not say that.

You misquoted me.

I said nothing about whether it's right to be bigoted. Instead, thank
you for disingenuously misstating my point, I said that it is not
bigotry to castigate someone for their behavior.

And the relevancy is?

The political parts of Roedy's web site seems at be very
negative towards entire groups without evaluating any
individual behavior.

You are engaging in begging the question and straw-man arguments.

And not talking about

Fine, if we were discussing someone's bigotry, which we aren't.

We're discussing Roedy's political statements, which are not bigoted.

The before mentioned parts of his web site does seem to fit the
definition of bigotry pretty well.

A very one sided and rather extreme point of view with a tendency
to ignore facts on certain topics.

You are like Humpty Dumpty in _Through the Looking Glass_: "When I use a
word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, no more, no less."

But your definitions happen to be wrong.

Hate speech is hate speech, as you so circularly claim, but speech
excoriating someone's actions is not hate speech.

You don't get to just make up your own definitions.

Given that having a first name that starts with Q is
not an action of that person (unless he changed his
name himself), then I can not see that example
conflict with your definition.

Huh? Religion?

And religion is a matter of choice, so one is perfectly free to speak
against the practices of any relgion, including even atheism.

Otherwise statements like, "That church stole gazillions from gullible
poor people" would be hate speech, which it isn't, or "That other church
engages in hate speech" would be hate speech, which it isn't.

But it would be hate speech to say that "Everybody belonging to that
church are thieves".

Arne