Nine ways of identifying Class-Path in manifest that don't work

[Composer]

Seriously curious: what is your experience that you've never seen a
relative path go up two levels before?

markspace, I'm not sure you deserve an answer to your gratuitously
flaming question, but I'll give you one anyway.

I've been programming since 1977, on a half-dozen operating systems
and over a dozen languages of which Java is the latest. Every one
of my clients has been happy with the work I've done for them, and
I keep getting asked for more. Somehow I managed this without ever
having to learn DOS or UNIX line commands, except for a few which
became necessary along the way.

Your post consists of three things: an assertion that I should have
wished to invent a bizarre syntax because other people have done so;
an aspersion upon my programming experience because I didn't know a
syntax that is patently not necessary for a successful career; and a
gratuitous remark that seems to question the file-system knowledge
of the authors of the O'Reilly books on Mac OS X.

If you find sometimes that people don't bother replying to you,
think about it.

 

[Lew]

markspace, I'm not sure you deserve an answer to your gratuitously
flaming question, but I'll give you one anyway.

I've been programming since 1977, on a half-dozen operating systems
and over a dozen languages of which Java is the latest.  Every one
of my clients has been happy with the work I've done for them, and
I keep getting asked for more.  Somehow I managed this without ever
having to learn DOS or UNIX line commands, except for a few which
became necessary along the way.

Your post consists of three things:  an assertion that I should have
wished to invent a bizarre syntax because other people have done so;
an aspersion upon my programming experience because I didn't know a
syntax that is patently not necessary for a successful career; and a
gratuitous remark that seems to question the file-system knowledge
of the authors of the O'Reilly books on Mac OS X.

If you find sometimes that people don't bother replying to you,
think about it.

Actually, markspace is a known valuable contributor to this newsgroup,
so the risk of people ignoring him here is quite tiny.

The number of professional programmers of any experience who've never
been exposed to DOS/UNIX/CP/M relative path syntax before is
vanishingly small, so his surprise is understandable. He did not, as
you speciously claim, assert that you "should have wished to invent a
bizarre syntax because other people have done so"; he was only
pointing out that that syntax has been around for enough decades that
no one who describes themself as an experienced programmer should find
it bizarre. It is a surprising gap for someone of your long years of
experience, frankly.

As for it being an "aspersion" on your skill, just chalk it up to an
understandable astonishment that anyone could program for any length
of time and find relative path syntax strange.

I have no idea how you drag in "the authors of the O'Reilly books on
Mac OS X". They have nothing to do with this.

Just lower your ruffles, put down your dukes, and participate without
getting your knickers in a twist, ok? Anyone would be surprised to
find a professional programmer not familiar with basic knowledge like
path syntax. Take it as coaching so you can fill in that Grand Canyon
knowledge gap, and it will make you both a better programmer and a
happier person.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm not talking about icon shortcuts.

As far as whether NTFS symbolic links "work under Windows", that depends
on what you mean by "under Windows". Certainly, it being a file system
feature, when NTFS is used with Windows, links work transparently and
fine. Also, the Windows programming API has support for it (using either
the CreateSymbolicLink() or CreateSymbolicLinkTransacted() function)

Actually, it turns out I was wrong about there being no "ln" command. Or
rather, I was right about that, but there's an equivalent, called
"mklink", you can use from the command line. I'm pretty sure this wasn't
around in XP, so it probably showed up in Vista. Maybe that's when they
added symbolic links to NTFS too…I'm not sure. I know there was some
kind of file system linking earlier than that (along with NTFS's support
for multiple data streams in a file), but I'm not really a Windows
historian. I have a hard time keeping the more esoteric features
straight.

Those with older Windows versions can download:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896768.aspx

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Originally NTFS theoretically had symbolic links but there was no
support for them of any kind. I still don't think there is any
support from them in the user GUI. I think MS thinks of them as too
complicated for its end users. They are more a programmer convenience
tool.

Several hundred years ago people believed that the earth was flat
as well.

Since then science grew up and many people started testing things
instead of just believing something.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

markspace, I'm not sure you deserve an answer to your gratuitously
flaming question, but I'll give you one anyway.

I've been programming since 1977, on a half-dozen operating systems
and over a dozen languages of which Java is the latest. Every one
of my clients has been happy with the work I've done for them, and
I keep getting asked for more. Somehow I managed this without ever
having to learn DOS or UNIX line commands, except for a few which
became necessary along the way.

Your post consists of three things: an assertion that I should have
wished to invent a bizarre syntax because other people have done so;
an aspersion upon my programming experience because I didn't know a
syntax that is patently not necessary for a successful career; and a
gratuitous remark that seems to question the file-system knowledge
of the authors of the O'Reilly books on Mac OS X.

I can understand Mark's question.

Anyone that have worked with a MS operating system or a Unix
style operating system just as a user should know that type
of paths.

Whether you have worked in extremely special environments in
more than 30 years or you are just a good con man we have no way
of knowing.

What we do know is that understanding of paths is basic
knowledge and that someone not believing so is out of
touch with the world.

Arne

 

[Lew]

Several hundred years ago people believed that the earth was flat
as well.

Not all people. The circumference of the earth was calculated within a
fraction of a percent millennia ago. Sailors and shoreside residents knew it
was round because ships disappeared from view gradually rather than all at
once. Navigators and ships' officers in Europe knew the world was round by at
least the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Some people did believe the earth
was flat, of course, but then again some people believe that today, so things
haven't changed that month.

Since then science grew up and many people started testing things
instead of just believing something.

The key word is "many". I doubt it's the majority. Of course, here in this
group we're supposed to be among the intellectual and educationed elite, so in
that context your point is well taken.

 

[RedGrittyBrick]

we're supposed to be among the intellectual and educationed elite

I wish we'd been educated instead :-(

 

[Lew]

I wish we'd been educated instead :-(

and I claim I are an grammarion. Yeesh.

I blame it on my typing. Y'know, just to make excuses.

Je croix que quelqu'un est heureux avec cela, sans doute. Je ne dirais pas
qui, mais je sais. Honi soit qui mal y pense.