CodingJava-me-do

  

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  koswix    25 Mar 2011 01:05 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      21 of 49 
38317.21 In reply to 38317.19 
How dare you post things at me that are meant for Steve? :@

GIVE ME EYERON OR! :@ msg:38140.1
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  steve   25 Mar 2011 01:09 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      22 of 49 
38317.22 In reply to 38317.19 
I know there's a massive career market for Java programmers (I know a few, they are all awful people. "Hello :-B I have a certificate from Oracle :-B "), but if you're a professional programmer working in an office surrounded by other programmers (which your chart is counting) you are quite likely going to ask them your questions before turning to The Internets.

My point all along, as I said in my first post to Kos, was that I don't think there's going to be anything near as large a "community" of amateur programmers online as there would be for a language like C# or PHP.

When I'm teaching myself a new language it's resources like that I really rely on. The fact that some other un-educated buffoon has had the same problem as me, posted to a forum about it and had the solution given to them.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   25 Mar 2011 01:13 
 To:  koswix       23 of 49 
38317.23 In reply to 38317.17 
You know those silly legal documents where every little detail must be explicitly spelt out and every term precisely defined.

That's what I find Java like. Far too rigid and ceremonial.

It's a bit like the difference between HTML and XHTML...

HTML code:
<!doctype html><html lang="en">
 
<TITLE>Hello!</TITLE>
 
<p>Wooohoo!!!
<p>I <3 lemons.

XML code:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> 
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> 
<html lang="en" xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> 
<head>
	<title>Hello!</title>
</head>
<body>
	<p>Wooohoo!!!</p>
	<p>I &lt;3 lemons.</p>
</body>
</html>



Those result in the same thing.

If you think the second one over the top, you'll find Java a nightmare. :P
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   25 Mar 2011 01:24 
 To:  steve      24 of 49 
38317.24 In reply to 38317.22 
http://stackoverflow.com/tags

It's the second most popular language on a heavily .NET-oriented website.

And working out unanswered against total questions, he's more likely to get a Java question answered than a PHP or Javascript one. (87.0 vs 86.9 vs 85.1)
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  steve   25 Mar 2011 01:32 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      25 of 49 
38317.25 In reply to 38317.24 
You are exhausting! It's an opinion! :D

I shall give you numbers back, Google-numbers !!:

"Java programming forum": 4,550,000 results
"C# programming forum": 9,780,000 results
"PHP programming forum": 12,800,000 results

There isn't going to be a concise final answer on this, it is just my view on things, but I do feel that PHP and C#.etc are going to be more common as "hobby languages" whilst Java is something one tends to do as a career thing, therefore there's going to be a much more approachable and usable type of support out there online.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  koswix    25 Mar 2011 01:42 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      26 of 49 
38317.26 In reply to 38317.23 

Your first one doesn't validate at w3C :C

 


and also, surely that there that you've posted - browsers interpreting HTML any old way they want - is the reason web drawers spend so long having to make sites work in different browsers?


GIVE ME EYERON OR! :@ msg:38140.1
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   25 Mar 2011 02:29 
 To:  koswix       27 of 49 
38317.27 In reply to 38317.26 
You checked! :D

(Ok, so the <3 bit is actually invalid, but it'll still work fine in all browsers.)

And no - parsing textual tags to a logical DOM is straightforward and pretty easy, and is only a small part of how HTML is interpreted. It's the rest of it that causes the problems.

But anyway, at that point the analogy breaks down - whichever language you choose, you're going to have a single compiler, and you only need to work with that compiler. (Well, or two compilers, if you want to do regular Java and Android Java (Dalvik), but anyway, it's not like the multitude of browsers.)
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   25 Mar 2011 02:38 
 To:  steve      28 of 49 
38317.28 In reply to 38317.25 
I don't understand what you're opinioning. :P


If he picks any language listed on that tags page, for any question he has at this point (i.e. beginner level), he can post it on StackOverflow, and there's a >95% chance of it being answered and solved within 24 hours, if not within 30 minutes.


If he wants to do Android, he has a choice:
1. Java (or Java-based) and XML and Android APIs.
2. HTML+CSS+JavaScript (optionally with PhoneGap/equiv to compile).


Is that concise enough? :P
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   25 Mar 2011 08:51 
 To:  koswix       29 of 49 
38317.29 In reply to 38317.10 

If you buy a Mac you get the Apple developer toolkit which allows you to make apps for approximately 1% of the world's computing population. It's a minority, but one that cares and will love you for your efforts.

 

(the last part of that second sentence may be a lie)

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  af (CAER)   25 Mar 2011 10:55 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      30 of 49 
38317.30 In reply to 38317.29 
The downside being that Xcode is a horribly confusing mess of a (pair of) applications, unless he pays £5 for Xcode 4.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  af (CAER)   25 Mar 2011 10:57 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      31 of 49 
38317.31 In reply to 38317.19 
Possibly the reason the job market for Java is so large is because it's used so much in enterprise software ( :& ).

KOS: learn COBOL :{)
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  af (CAER)   25 Mar 2011 10:58 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      32 of 49 
38317.32 In reply to 38317.23 
Also, wtf is with that uppercase TITLE tag? It looks ugleh.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Matt   25 Mar 2011 12:22 
 To:  af (CAER)      33 of 49 
38317.33 In reply to 38317.31 
This.

Plus Java is such a pain to use they have to hire two Java developers for every one developer of every other programming language.

doohicky
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  steve   25 Mar 2011 12:25 
 To:  af (CAER)      34 of 49 
38317.34 In reply to 38317.31 
That is the sentence I was trying to create, but I could not find the words :(
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  af (CAER)   25 Mar 2011 12:33 
 To:  ALL 35 of 49 
38317.35 
Also, time to bring out my favourite enterprise software images: dependency diagrams...

This one is not so bad:
http://img.thedailywtf.com/images/201101/DependencyGraph.png

This one is a bit more complex:
http://img.thedailywtf.com/images/201103/tes0001.jpg

This one... is no moon...
http://img.thedailywtf.com/images/201103/big_ball_of_yarn.jpg
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   25 Mar 2011 14:59 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      36 of 49 
38317.36 In reply to 38317.27 
Ummm, it's a bit more than that. Even HTML 5 requires the HEAD/BODY to be defined and tags to be properly closed. No?

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   25 Mar 2011 15:02 
 To:  Matt      37 of 49 
38317.37 In reply to 38317.33 
Plus, from a purely aesthetics POV Java apps all have one thing in common...bloody ugly.

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   25 Mar 2011 15:18 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      38 of 49 
38317.38 In reply to 38317.36 
Nope.

The head element ends (and the body starts) as soon as the first non-head element is used. It doesn't need the explicit tags to work.

(I think there's a margin bug with IE6 if you don't specify html and body, but IE9 is out now, so I'm not going to care about IE6 layout issues now.)
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   25 Mar 2011 16:25 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      39 of 49 
38317.39 In reply to 38317.38 

Indeed, it appears that you are correct!

 

That's just bloody messed up!

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   25 Mar 2011 16:47 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      40 of 49 
38317.40 In reply to 38317.39 
Why messed up?

So long as it's obvious to a human and unambiguous to the compiler, there's no point adding extra tags for the sake of it.

Probably don't even need the HTML tag, if you specify language via the Content-Language header...

code:
<!doctype html>
 
    HEAD STUFF
 
<body>
 
    BODY STUFF
 

Simple, obvious, and readable. :)
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All  
 

1–20  21–40  41–49

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats