Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML??

Discussion in 'Java' started by Gene Wirchenko, Jul 26, 2012.

  1. On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:05:13 -0700, Jim Gibson <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Gene Wirchenko
    ><> wrote:


    [snip]

    >> Lew, if you were trying to discourage people from using Java, I
    >> can think of no better way than your harping. That sort of behaviour
    >> by you and some others here is part of why I gave it up.

    >
    >It seems silly to fault a language because of the behavior of a few
    >individuals on Usenet.


    I had problems with the language. As we know (don't we?), every
    language has its quirks. When I posted asking for help, I tended to
    get nitpicker responses on points that were not relevant to the
    problem. In one case, the replier criticised my variable-naming
    convention and did not reply to the problem at all. It does not take
    many of those to conclude that it is an unfriendly environment. If I
    can not get help when I need it, it might be better to use another
    language. I have not run into this behaviour in other language
    newsgroups, at least, there is nowhere near the amount of backbiting
    as can be here. What is it about Java and too many of its adherents?

    There are some nice discussions about general issues which is why
    I continue to follow this newsgroup.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jul 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 7/25/2012 7:07 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:05:13 -0700, Jim Gibson <>
    > wrote:
    >> In article <>, Gene Wirchenko
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>> Lew, if you were trying to discourage people from using Java, I
    >>> can think of no better way than your harping. That sort of behaviour
    >>> by you and some others here is part of why I gave it up.

    >>
    >> It seems silly to fault a language because of the behavior of a few
    >> individuals on Usenet.

    >
    > I had problems with the language. As we know (don't we?), every
    > language has its quirks. When I posted asking for help, I tended to
    > get nitpicker responses on points that were not relevant to the
    > problem. In one case, the replier criticised my variable-naming
    > convention and did not reply to the problem at all. It does not take
    > many of those to conclude that it is an unfriendly environment.


    By not following advice you indicated that you were not
    interested in learning Java.

    Very few want to waste time helping someone learn Java
    that are not interested in learning Java.

    > If I
    > can not get help when I need it, it might be better to use another
    > language.


    If you want to get the "the customer is always Right" treatment,
    then pay somebody.

    I strongly suspect that Lew will help you with all the
    problem no matter how you name your variables for
    250 dollars an hour.

    If you want help for free on usenet you try to do your part.

    > I have not run into this behaviour in other language
    > newsgroups, at least, there is nowhere near the amount of backbiting
    > as can be here.


    The C# group is pretty similar.

    The C group was a lot more aggressive when I last followed
    it.

    What languages?

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Jul 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:35:38 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <>
    wrote:

    >On 7/25/2012 7:07 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:


    [snip]

    >> I had problems with the language. As we know (don't we?), every
    >> language has its quirks. When I posted asking for help, I tended to
    >> get nitpicker responses on points that were not relevant to the
    >> problem. In one case, the replier criticised my variable-naming
    >> convention and did not reply to the problem at all. It does not take
    >> many of those to conclude that it is an unfriendly environment.

    >
    >By not following advice you indicated that you were not
    >interested in learning Java.


    That is quite false and rather an arrogant conclusion.

    I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable
    naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java. My questions
    were not about formatting et al. Nonetheless, I was still interested
    in learning Java.

    [snip]

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jul 26, 2012
    #3
  4. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 7/25/2012 8:33 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:35:38 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/25/2012 7:07 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>> I had problems with the language. As we know (don't we?), every
    >>> language has its quirks. When I posted asking for help, I tended to
    >>> get nitpicker responses on points that were not relevant to the
    >>> problem. In one case, the replier criticised my variable-naming
    >>> convention and did not reply to the problem at all. It does not take
    >>> many of those to conclude that it is an unfriendly environment.

    >>
    >> By not following advice you indicated that you were not
    >> interested in learning Java.

    >
    > That is quite false and rather an arrogant conclusion.


    It seems rather well substantiated by your posts.

    > I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable
    > naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java.


    Maybe not.

    But it is still a bad idea.

    And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.

    So not very attractive to spend time on you problems.

    A lot more beneficial to spend time explaining to other readers
    how bad it so they have a chance of learning to do the right thing.

    > My questions
    > were not about formatting et al. Nonetheless, I was still interested
    > in learning Java.


    No.

    You were interested to learn the Wirchenko language that just
    happened to be compilable with a Java compiler because it has
    the same grammar.

    The interest in that language from other is very small.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Jul 26, 2012
    #4
  5. On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:00:03 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <>
    wrote:

    [snip]

    >And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.


    No, I am not interested in doing things your way. There are many
    workable ways.

    You can call your way the Java way if you wish, but that really
    does not make it the only workable way.

    [snip]

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jul 26, 2012
    #5
  6. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 7/26/2012 12:06 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:00:03 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.

    >
    > No, I am not interested in doing things your way.


    If it was just my way there were no need to.

    But it is not my way - it is the way used in the Java world.

    > There are many
    > workable ways.
    >
    > You can call your way the Java way if you wish, but that really
    > does not make it the only workable way.


    Absolutely not.

    But it is the way that are relevant for Java programmers.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Jul 26, 2012
    #6
  7. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 7/26/2012 12:36 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    > On 7/25/2012 6:00 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > ...
    >> You were interested to learn the Wirchenko language that just
    >> happened to be compilable with a Java compiler because it has
    >> the same grammar.

    >
    > The question of whether something is or is not Java seems to me to be
    > one for which the JLS is indeed the ultimate authority. Can you point
    > out in some way in which Gene's programs failed to conform to the JLS?


    If it did not conform to the JLS then hopefully the Java compiler would
    not compile it.

    But I assume that the question was rhetorical.You know what I mean, but
    disagree (which is fine).

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Jul 26, 2012
    #7
  8. On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:36:22 -0700, Patricia Shanahan <>
    wrote:

    >On 7/25/2012 6:00 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >...
    >> You were interested to learn the Wirchenko language that just
    >> happened to be compilable with a Java compiler because it has
    >> the same grammar.

    >
    >The question of whether something is or is not Java seems to me to be
    >one for which the JLS is indeed the ultimate authority. Can you point
    >out in some way in which Gene's programs failed to conform to the JLS?


    Thank you for posting that. I wish more people would consider
    that.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jul 26, 2012
    #8
  9. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 7/26/2012 2:01 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    > On 7/26/2012 10:10 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 7/26/2012 12:36 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    >>> On 7/25/2012 6:00 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>> ...
    >>>> You were interested to learn the Wirchenko language that just
    >>>> happened to be compilable with a Java compiler because it has
    >>>> the same grammar.
    >>>
    >>> The question of whether something is or is not Java seems to me to be
    >>> one for which the JLS is indeed the ultimate authority. Can you point
    >>> out in some way in which Gene's programs failed to conform to the JLS?

    >>
    >> If it did not conform to the JLS then hopefully the Java compiler would
    >> not compile it.
    >>
    >> But I assume that the question was rhetorical.You know what I mean, but
    >> disagree (which is fine).

    >
    > I'm not sure I know what you mean. Whether something is Java or not is a
    > question of fact, and should be settled by reference to the JLS.
    >
    > It may be quite reasonable to decide that you are only willing to
    > respond to questions from people who follow conventions you like, but I
    > don't think it is reasonable to call something not Java because it does
    > not follow those conventions.


    Whether some code is valid in the Java language and its semantics
    are obviously defined by the JLS.

    But Java comes with a baggage of history, philosophy,
    traditions and lessons learned.

    Java developers are not all identical.

    If we look at some of the statements made in various threads:
    - OOP is just overhead
    - patterns are useless
    - micro optimizations are good
    - public fields are OK
    - interfaces are useless
    - I don't want to follow the standard naming convention
    - I don't want to follow the standard formatting convention
    - I don't want to use the Java library because my own is better
    - portability is useless
    - unit tests are useless
    - ORM's are useless
    - make is the right build tool for Java
    - UML is useles
    - Java docs are useless
    etc.
    then the archetype Java developer would not believe in any of them.

    But many Java developers actually believe in a few of them, because
    people are different with different personal experiences and working
    in different domains. And best practices are not an exact science.

    Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
    about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
    is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
    overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
    person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
    kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
    when they hire a Java developer.

    People are not born with knowledge about good Java practices. They
    learn them along the way.

    I find it natural that people posting problems in cljp are violating
    some common best practices in Java. If they knew everything then they
    would probably not have a problem to post.

    I am all for helping them with their problem. And also guiding them
    towards better practices. I do that as well. I don't think I am among
    the most rigorous in that regard though.

    If people notice the well meant suggestions and over time adjust,
    then I am happy.

    If they chose to ignore the good advice, then I am disappointed but
    not surprised. That is how it is. I don't maintain a black list so
    I will most likely try and help them again - and get disappointed again.
    But I know that is how it is. C'est la vie. And having to maintain
    the code they end up with is a severe punishment in itself!

    But there are a few things that get me in flame mode:

    1) Complaints from posters that they just want their miserable
    code fixed without any good advice. That is what one can request
    for 250 dollars an hour. If one want free advice, then one has
    to accept the full package of advice.

    2) Attempts to recommend the bad practices to other. Either explicit
    or implicit by criticizing when somebody points out the problems
    in some code.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Jul 26, 2012
    #9
  10. Gene Wirchenko

    David Lamb Guest

    On 26/07/2012 2:47 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >
    > Whether some code is valid in the Java language and its semantics
    > are obviously defined by the JLS.
    >
    > But Java comes with a baggage of history, philosophy,
    > traditions and lessons learned.


    In support of Arne:

    I know a programming language semanticist (whom one might think was only
    interested in formalizable stuff) say that languages also had
    "pragmatics", which include all the sorts of things Arne listed. I think
    one could use the word "culture" too.
     
    David Lamb, Jul 26, 2012
    #10
  11. On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:47:46 -0400, Arne Vajhøj <>
    wrote:

    >On 7/26/2012 2:01 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:


    [snip]

    >> It may be quite reasonable to decide that you are only willing to
    >> respond to questions from people who follow conventions you like, but I
    >> don't think it is reasonable to call something not Java because it does
    >> not follow those conventions.

    >
    >Whether some code is valid in the Java language and its semantics
    >are obviously defined by the JLS.
    >
    >But Java comes with a baggage of history, philosophy,
    >traditions and lessons learned.


    And mistakes made. Every language has its downside even _____.
    (Fill in the blank however you choose.)

    >Java developers are not all identical.
    >
    >If we look at some of the statements made in various threads:
    >- OOP is just overhead
    >- patterns are useless
    >- micro optimizations are good
    >- public fields are OK
    >- interfaces are useless
    >- I don't want to follow the standard naming convention
    >- I don't want to follow the standard formatting convention
    >- I don't want to use the Java library because my own is better
    >- portability is useless
    >- unit tests are useless
    >- ORM's are useless
    >- make is the right build tool for Java
    >- UML is useles
    >- Java docs are useless
    >etc.
    >then the archetype Java developer would not believe in any of them.


    Oh?

    These statements are written as binary. Either it is right or it
    is wrong. And many are just bait.

    Take the first one. "OOP is just overhead" OOP does have
    overhead. That might or might not matter. If the benefits of OOP
    outweigh the disadvantages, it may well be used. In another
    situation, it might not do. In many, it does not matter.

    Other points can be disposed of similarly. There are only a few
    that I would totally agree with.

    >But many Java developers actually believe in a few of them, because
    >people are different with different personal experiences and working
    >in different domains. And best practices are not an exact science.


    Quite.

    >Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
    >about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
    >is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
    >overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
    >person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
    >kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
    >when they hire a Java developer.


    [snip]

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jul 27, 2012
    #11
  12. Gene Wirchenko

    Lew Guest

    Wanja Gayk wrote:
    > says...
    >>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable
    >>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java.

    >
    >> Maybe not.
    >>
    >> But it is still a bad idea.
    >>
    >> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.

    >
    > "You can write FORTRAN in any language."
    >
    > http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535


    Funny, but it ducks the point.

    And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.

    I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java.

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Aug 3, 2012
    #12
  13. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 8/2/2012 7:48 PM, Lew wrote:
    > Wanja Gayk wrote:
    >> says...
    >>>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable
    >>>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java.

    >>
    >>> Maybe not.
    >>>
    >>> But it is still a bad idea.
    >>>
    >>> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.

    >>
    >> "You can write FORTRAN in any language."
    >>
    >> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535

    >
    > Funny, but it ducks the point.
    >
    > And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.
    >
    > I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java.


    Somehow I think you have gotten Wanja and Gene mixed up.

    I have no reason to believe that Wanja is anti-"Java best pracice".

    In fact I see his post as being definite but subtle pro-"Java
    best pracice".

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 3, 2012
    #13
  14. Gene Wirchenko

    Lew Guest

    Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > Lew wrote:
    >> Wanja Gayk wrote:
    >>> Arne Vajhøj says...
    >>>>> I already have a multi-language style for indenting, variable
    >>>>> naming, etc. I see no reason to change it for Java.


    >>>> Maybe not.
    >>>>
    >>>> But it is still a bad idea.
    >>>>
    >>>> And it indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.
    >>>
    >>> "You can write FORTRAN in any language."
    >>>
    >>> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039535


    >> Funny, but it ducks the point.
    >>
    >> And further indicates that you are not interested in doing things the Java way.
    >>
    >> I know you're proud of that, but it's actually a bad thing when you're doing Java.

    >
    > Somehow I think you have gotten Wanja and Gene mixed up.


    The lack of attributions in the post I answered is what I choose to blame.

    Yes, I should have researched the upthread context. So OK, I blame myself.

    > I have no reason to believe that Wanja is anti-"Java best pracice".
    >
    > In fact I see his post as being definite but subtle pro-"Java
    > best practice".


    I am embarrassed. You are exactly right. I apologize, Wanja.

    I missed your point completely.

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Aug 3, 2012
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:

    > On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >
    > >> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.

    > >
    > > You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old
    > > hand shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's
    > > arm with our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you
    > > operated your old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're
    > > used to that.
    > >
    > > Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do
    > > the same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way
    > > their inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another
    > > tool previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the
    > > brightest idea.

    >
    > There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective
    > use of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the
    > wood, and tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a
    > wood chisel and a mallet does that the same way round.


    One sharp on both ends might be widely rejected as dangerous; one blunt
    on both ends might be an unfamiliar style of draw knife. I see no harm
    in polite explication in either case.

    > The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as
    > though the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most
    > excavators of that model were painted green. A particular user has a
    > lot of hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of
    > excavators, and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the
    > inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.
    >
    > He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
    > take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
    > should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user
    > unless he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.


    A medical supply vendor asks for help marketing a new line of compressed
    nitrous oxide. Instead of the familiar blue, the tanks are green,
    "nitrous" is almost illegible, and "oxide" is misspelled in a
    particularly unfortunate way. No one comments. An errant bottle finds
    its way to a matching green oxygen manifold; hapless victims enter a
    persistent vegetative state. Misery ensues.

    As a practical matter, most stylistic vagaries fall between these
    consequential extremes. I would encourage posters to welcome related
    answers, both those that cite a problem and those that comment on its
    relative importance.

    --
    John B. Matthews
    trashgod at gmail dot com
    <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
     
    John B. Matthews, Aug 5, 2012
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:

    [...]
    > >> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for
    > >> effective use of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel
    > >> against the wood, and tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure
    > >> everyone using a wood chisel and a mallet does that the same way
    > >> round.

    > >
    > > One sharp on both ends might be widely rejected as dangerous; one
    > > blunt on both ends might be an unfamiliar style of draw knife. I
    > > see no harm in polite explication in either case.
    > >
    > >> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as
    > >> though the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most
    > >> excavators of that model were painted green. A particular user has
    > >> a lot of hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models
    > >> of excavators, and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the
    > >> inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.
    > >>
    > >> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some
    > >> people take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him
    > >> that it should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator
    > >> user unless he paints it green, and that green paint is the
    > >> excavator way.

    > >
    > > A medical supply vendor asks for help marketing a new line of
    > > compressed nitrous oxide. Instead of the familiar blue, the tanks
    > > are green, "nitrous" is almost illegible, and "oxide" is misspelled
    > > in a particularly unfortunate way. No one comments. An errant
    > > bottle finds its way to a matching green oxygen manifold; hapless
    > > victims enter a persistent vegetative state. Misery ensues.

    >
    > This seems like a good argument in support of sticking to one style,
    > regardless of brand. The programming equivalent is using one set of
    > conventions for indentation and identifier construction regardless of
    > programming language. That way, there is less risk of someone
    > misreading an identifier because it is in a different style from code
    > in another language they have been using.


    Sorry, the best I can muster is a few variations per language. I've
    grown too dependent on perceptual cues that help me change gear into
    whatever language I face. This may be an artifact of having worked
    largely in code bases that already followed established, widely used
    guidelines.

    --
    John B. Matthews
    trashgod at gmail dot com
    <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
     
    John B. Matthews, Aug 7, 2012
    #16
  17. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 7/27/2012 12:05 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    > On 7/26/2012 11:47 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > ...
    >> Someone believing in most of them is a different story. I am skeptical
    >> about calling such a person for a Java developer. Even though the code
    >> is following JLS and compiles with javac, then there is almost no
    >> overlap with the Java world. It is not the Java way. And if the
    >> person tried to write such code at work, then the person would be
    >> kicked out quickly in many places. It is not what companies expect
    >> when they hire a Java developer.

    > ...
    >
    > I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies. Java
    > happens to be a favorite tool, one that fits my brain the way my
    > favorite wood carving chisel fits my hand. On the other hand, I no more
    > subscribe to "the Java way" than to a "the half inch chisel way".
    >
    > When I'm starting a new program, in a situation in which I'm free to use
    > any standards I like, I follow the commonest conventions for the
    > program's language. If I'm modifying or adding to an existing project,
    > or working in an organization that has other conventions, I follow the
    > local conventions.


    So in reality you are subscribing to the Java way.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 7, 2012
    #17
  18. Gene Wirchenko

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 8/4/2012 10:45 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    > On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...
    >>
    >>> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.

    >>
    >> You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old hand
    >> shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's arm with
    >> our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you operated your
    >> old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're used to that.
    >>
    >> Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do the
    >> same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way their
    >> inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another tool
    >> previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the brightest
    >> idea.

    >
    > There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective use
    > of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the wood, and
    > tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a wood chisel
    > and a mallet does that the same way round.
    >
    > The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as though
    > the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most excavators of
    > that model were painted green. A particular user has a lot of
    > hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of excavators,
    > and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the inconvenience of
    > keeping different paint colors around.
    >
    > He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
    > take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
    > should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user unless
    > he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.


    That is a lousy analogy.

    There should not be any real impact due to different colors of
    the excavators.

    There are real (negative!) impact of using:
    - different coding conventions
    - different diagram symbols

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 7, 2012
    #18
  19. On 8/5/2012 11:41 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
    > On 8/5/2012 7:50 AM, John B. Matthews wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> Patricia Shanahan <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 8/4/2012 1:17 AM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> says...
    >>>>
    >>>>> I think of programming languages as tools, not philosophies.
    >>>>
    >>>> You can use a excavator to dig a hole and you could use your old
    >>>> hand shovel, but you would not try to grab and move the excavator's
    >>>> arm with our hands to dig a hole, just because that's the way you
    >>>> operated your old hand shovel for the past 10 years, and you're
    >>>> used to that.
    >>>>
    >>>> Both are different tools that use the same method (digging) to do
    >>>> the same job (creating a hole), but they want to be used the way
    >>>> their inventors have imagined, not the way you have used another
    >>>> tool previously. It may still work though, but I doubt it's the
    >>>> brightest idea.
    >>>
    >>> There are indeed some things that are really necessary for effective
    >>> use of a given tool. I put the sharp end of my chisel against the
    >>> wood, and tap the blunt end with a mallet. I'm sure everyone using a
    >>> wood chisel and a mallet does that the same way round.

    >>
    >> One sharp on both ends might be widely rejected as dangerous; one blunt
    >> on both ends might be an unfamiliar style of draw knife. I see no harm
    >> in polite explication in either case.
    >>
    >>> The analogy for the situation that started this sub-thread is as
    >>> though the excavator were delivered with green paint, and most
    >>> excavators of that model were painted green. A particular user has a
    >>> lot of hole-related tools such as pile drivers and other models of
    >>> excavators, and choose to paint all of them blue to avoid the
    >>> inconvenience of keeping different paint colors around.
    >>>
    >>> He asked a question about lubricating the excavator, but some people
    >>> take one look at a photo of his blue excavator and tell him that it
    >>> should be green, that he will never be a capable excavator user
    >>> unless he paints it green, and that green paint is the excavator way.

    >>
    >> A medical supply vendor asks for help marketing a new line of compressed
    >> nitrous oxide. Instead of the familiar blue, the tanks are green,
    >> "nitrous" is almost illegible, and "oxide" is misspelled in a
    >> particularly unfortunate way. No one comments. An errant bottle finds
    >> its way to a matching green oxygen manifold; hapless victims enter a
    >> persistent vegetative state. Misery ensues.

    >
    > This seems like a good argument in support of sticking to one style,
    > regardless of brand. The programming equivalent is using one set of
    > conventions for indentation and identifier construction regardless of
    > programming language. That way, there is less risk of someone misreading
    > an identifier because it is in a different style from code in another
    > language they have been using.


    I think same brand for programming languages is SUN Java and
    IBM Java for Java, GCC and MSVC++ for C/C++ etc..

    And it certainly makes sense to use the same conventions
    no matter what vendor provides the compiler.

    Different languages must be more like different type
    of bottles: medical supply, beverages, poisons.

    And they do not use same color convention.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Aug 7, 2012
    #19
    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. Ramon F. Herrera

    Do C++ and Java professionals use UML??

    Ramon F. Herrera, Jul 19, 2012, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    725
    R kamalakkannan
    Aug 2, 2012
  2. Gene Wirchenko
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    219
    Arne Vajhøj
    Jul 25, 2012
  3. Gene Wirchenko
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    289
    Arne Vajhøj
    Aug 2, 2012
  4. David Lamb
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    155
    David Lamb
    Jul 27, 2012
  5. Arne Vajhøj
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    166
    Arne Vajhøj
    Aug 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page