By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
439,957 Members | 2,038 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 439,957 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Dive Into Java?

P: n/a
DiveIntoPython.org was the first book I read on python, and I really
got a lot out of it. I need to start learning Java (to maintain a
project I've inherited), and was wondering if anyone knew of any
similar books for Java?

Maybe once I know my way around the language, I can sneak Jython in...
:-)

Thanks!
Erik

Oct 8 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
51 Replies


P: n/a

erikcw wrote:
DiveIntoPython.org was the first book I read on python, and I really
got a lot out of it. I need to start learning Java (to maintain a
project I've inherited), and was wondering if anyone knew of any
similar books for Java?

Maybe once I know my way around the language, I can sneak Jython in...
:-)

Thanks!
Erik
Not exactly Dive into Java, but one amongst very great book on
programming (and the one that pointed me to Python :-)) , really! )
- *Just Java* by Peter van der Linden, really great book! and fun to
read, and bright, and this (apocryphical) citation (i don't have the
book under hand just now, being on vacation ;-)): *...to the question
'Should I learn Java, C++, Perl?' (the answer is) 'Yes!' ...*
and Python was included among several other OpenSource stuff on the CD.

Jean-Marc

Oct 9 '06 #2

P: n/a
Sun's Java tutorial, and went your confortable with it.

Thinking in Java Bruce Eckel

On 8 Oct 2006 15:30:15 -0700, erikcw <er***********@gmail.comwrote:
DiveIntoPython.org was the first book I read on python, and I really
got a lot out of it. I need to start learning Java (to maintain a
project I've inherited), and was wondering if anyone knew of any
similar books for Java?

Maybe once I know my way around the language, I can sneak Jython in...
:-)

Thanks!
Erik

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oct 9 '06 #3

P: n/a
erikcw wrote:
DiveIntoPython.org was the first book I read on python, and I
really
got a lot out of it. I need to start learning Java (to maintain a
project I've inherited), and was wondering if anyone knew of any
similar books for Java?
Perhaps a bit of a rant, but learn Python and C++, take the worst of
both, make it a language and you have Java ... ;)

Regards,
Bjrn

--
BOFH excuse #271:

The kernel license has expired

Oct 9 '06 #4

P: n/a
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
erikcw wrote:
>DiveIntoPython.org was the first book I read on python, and I
really
got a lot out of it. I need to start learning Java (to maintain a
project I've inherited), and was wondering if anyone knew of any
similar books for Java?

Perhaps a bit of a rant, but learn Python and C++, take the worst of
both, make it a language and you have Java ... ;)
While I do not love java, this is one of the dumbest statements for a while
in this NG - even though it is not meant to be too serious.

C++ has a lot of wicked, complicated features like overloadable assignment
statements and so on, misses GC, and is in general semantically very
overloaded. All that make programming it a real PITA, as you permanently
are at risk loosing your feet through self-inflicted gun-shot-wounds.

While Java is a language that makes it difficult to produce nice or
beautiful code, it certainly is a language that hinders you to shoot in
your own foot really badly.

Diez
Oct 9 '06 #5

P: n/a
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
While I do not love java, this is one of the dumbest statements
for a while in this NG - even though it is not meant to be too
serious.
Thanks for your concern. I didn't really state this from dumbness
though.

BTW, definitely consider looking up "irony" and "emoticon" in an
encyclopedia of your choice.
C++ has a lot of wicked, complicated features like overloadable
assignment statements and so on, misses GC, and is in general
semantically very overloaded.
Maybe. Though I think there /are/ languages with more complicated
features, with an imperfomant GC that can't be controlled, or more
semantically overloaded.

BTW, what exactly do you mean by "semantically overloaded" in the
case of C++? E. g. the :: and . operators where one could do both?
All that make programming it a real PITA, as you permanently are
at risk loosing your feet through self-inflicted gun-shot-wounds.
It can be quite convenient. Not as convenient as Python, but it's
not impossible at all to write working code without hundreds of
bugs. But that's what it reads like in your posting.
While Java is a language that makes it difficult to produce nice
or beautiful code,
because it wanted to be new and good but took over much of C++'s
syntax and made it even weirder,
it certainly is a language that hinders you to shoot in your own
foot really badly.
No, it is a language that forbids almost everything from C++ which
could be dangerous, and at the same time reimplements some of those
features "under the hood": E. g. no operator overloading, but "+"
concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely

Regards,
Bjrn

--
BOFH excuse #188:

...disk or the processor is on fire.

Oct 9 '06 #6

P: n/a
erikcw wrote:
DiveIntoPython.org was the first book I read on python, and I really
got a lot out of it. I need to start learning Java (to maintain a
project I've inherited), and was wondering if anyone knew of any
similar books for Java?

Maybe once I know my way around the language, I can sneak Jython in...
:-)

Thanks!
Erik

I also liked Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java. I new Java already before,
but this book was so fun to read that I read it anyway :-)
Oct 9 '06 #7

P: n/a
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>While I do not love java, this is one of the dumbest statements
for a while in this NG - even though it is not meant to be too
serious.

Thanks for your concern. I didn't really state this from dumbness
though.
What do you mean by "from dumbness"? I didn't accuse you of being dumb, if
that is what you are concerned of. But the statement was.
BTW, definitely consider looking up "irony" and "emoticon" in an
encyclopedia of your choice.
Putting a single emoticon on the end of an unreflected and wrong statement
doesn't make that statement a beacon of irony and wit. And in context of
somebody seeking enlightment regarding java, it's especially unhelpful and
confusing I think. Which was the reason for my post.
C++ has a lot of wicked, complicated features like overloadable
>assignment statements and so on, misses GC, and is in general
semantically very overloaded.

Maybe. Though I think there /are/ languages with more complicated
features, with an imperfomant GC that can't be controlled, or more
semantically overloaded.
So what? Either you talk about Java here, then name it and prove these
points, or not, then where is the relevance of that statement to this
discussion?

IF you talk about java and GC: yes, can be painful sometimes, in high-load
scenarios. And you can tweak it, btw.

But I can count the cases I ran into GC-troubles on one hand, where the
number of segfaults due lack of GCing in C++ are endless. And certainly not
only for me....
BTW, what exactly do you mean by "semantically overloaded" in the
case of C++? E. g. the :: and . operators where one could do both?
For example: the overloading of assignment operators, casting operators,
copy constructors and the like that, and the fact that one of them is
possibly chosen in absence of the other.

The subtle differences between pointers and references.

Ahh, not to forget the joys of slicing through non-virtual
copy-constructors. And while we are talking about it: virtual - a keyword
with a great deal of meanings....

Missing definition of static initializer order, at least for some binary
formats.

I could continue for some while...
>All that make programming it a real PITA, as you permanently are
at risk loosing your feet through self-inflicted gun-shot-wounds.

It can be quite convenient. Not as convenient as Python, but it's
not impossible at all to write working code without hundreds of
bugs. But that's what it reads like in your posting.
I didn't state that you can't produce working code with C++, I said that it
is remarkably more difficult than with java (and python anyway). Because of
aforementioned complications in the language design of C++.
>While Java is a language that makes it difficult to produce nice
or beautiful code,

because it wanted to be new and good but took over much of C++'s
syntax and made it even weirder,
Even weirder? Care to explain? While they _did_ choose some unneccessary
syntactic crud to stay in, even though it isn't needed (e.g. the
superfluous new-keyword), I don't see a lot of things like ::, ->, virtual,
=0 and so on. Not to mention struct and friend of course.

Yes, they tried to make it appealing to the eye of a C++-programmer. But
that pretty much is it.
>it certainly is a language that hinders you to shoot in your own
foot really badly.

No, it is a language that forbids almost everything from C++ which
could be dangerous, and at the same time reimplements some of those
features "under the hood": E. g. no operator overloading, but "+"
concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely
You are confusing things here. That you can't implement your own string
derived class has to do with java.lang.String being final - something I
grief about, too. But nothing with operator overloading of + for _all_
objects that support toString()....

Yes, Java lacks operator overloading, and that is a pity sometimes. But
getting productive with it is certainly in between python and C++, and not
below.

Diez
Oct 9 '06 #8

P: n/a
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
What do you mean by "from dumbness"?
It didn't originate from the "dumbness" area of my brain (== it
wasn't my honest opinion). It was meant satirical.
And in context of somebody seeking enlightment regarding java,
it's especially unhelpful and confusing I think. Which was the
reason for my post.
I understand.
So what? Either you talk about Java here, then name it and prove
these points, or not, then where is the relevance of that
statement to this discussion?
Again, it wasn't meant as honest and true argument. I'd better try
not to try be funny.
For example: the overloading of assignment operators, casting
operators, copy constructors and the like that, and the fact that
one of them is possibly chosen in absence of the other.
Isn't the overloading concept an effect of type strength? In Java,
you'd have to overload them too. Or am I missing something?
The subtle differences between pointers and references.
That's an issue, though you don't have to use them both. Kind
of "historically grown".
Ahh, not to forget the joys of slicing through non-virtual
copy-constructors. And while we are talking about it: virtual - a
keyword with a great deal of meanings....
ACK.
Missing definition of static initializer order, at least for some
binary formats.
Didn't come across this one though.
I could continue for some while...
Okay, I got it :)
>because it wanted to be new and good but took over much of C++'s
syntax and made it even weirder,
Even weirder? Care to explain?
Example:

int spam = 5;

but

String eggs = new String();

The latter seems totally unnecessary to me, as well as being too
verbose -- why couldn't they go the simple way as in Python and
just state

String eggs;

-- is it because in C++ it'd mean something different?
While they _did_ choose some
unneccessary syntactic crud to stay in, even though it isn't
needed (e.g. the superfluous new-keyword), I don't see a lot of
things like ::, ->, virtual, =0 and so on.
ACK.
Not to mention struct and friend of course.
Mh, struct seems to be an ancestor from C and being kept for
compatibility reasons (like many other stuff in C++
though). "friend"? Mh, nice to have, I once needed it. But anyway,
I like the Python way (don't forbid anything) better.
Yes, they tried to make it appealing to the eye of a
C++-programmer. But that pretty much is it.
That's a wrong decision, IMHO. A new and practical language (what
Java wanted to be) shouldn't provide 3/4-compatible syntax, but be
clear, concise and customizable, and shouldn't say "That's bad, you
mustn't do that."
You are confusing things here. That you can't implement your own
string derived class has to do with java.lang.String being final -
something I grief about, too.
That's not exactly my point. What if I just wanted to build my own
interface compatible class ... impossible.

For a start, it just doesn't look pretty ...

String ham;

ham = "1" + "2";

.... is translated to ...

ham = new StringBuffer().append("1").append("2").toString()
But nothing with operator overloading of + for _all_ objects that
support toString()....

Yes, Java lacks operator overloading, and that is a pity
sometimes.
And that was a clear design decision that is defended as "groovy"
until today.

Another funny thing are those awkward wrapper classes, but that's
been "patched" in an awkward way with 1.5 IIRC.
But getting productive with it is certainly in between python and
C++, and not below.
May in parts depend on the scenario, but ACK.

Regards,
Bjrn

--
BOFH excuse #442:

Trojan horse ran out of hay

Oct 9 '06 #9

P: n/a
Bjoern Schliessmann <us**************************@spamgourmet.comwrite s:
E. g. [in Java there is] no operator overloading, but "+"
concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely
Definitely? That one strikes me more as sarcasm.

It would have been "irony" if, in attempting to combat operator
overloading, you instead demonstrated by your very efforts that it was
essential and beneficial.

(Yes, everything Alanis Morrissette complains of in her song "(Isn't
It) Ironic" is not at all ironic, but is merely unfortunate. There's a
possibility she was aware of this:
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_(song)#Lyrics_controversy>)

(good sigmonster, have a cookie)

--
\ "I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono |
`\ album; no rhyme or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and |
_o__) then it's over." -- Ian Wolff |
Ben Finney

Oct 9 '06 #10

P: n/a
On Oct 9, 11:40 am, Bjoern Schliessmann
<usenet-mail-0306.20.chr0n...@spamgourmet.comwrote:
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
....
because [Java] wanted to be new and good but took over much of C++'s
syntax and made it even weirder,
Even weirder? Care to explain?Example:

int spam = 5;

but

String eggs = new String();

The latter seems totally unnecessary to me, as well as being too
verbose
It is! All you have to write is

String eggs = "";

Unfortunately, the other object types don't have literals.
why couldn't they go the simple way as in Python and
just state

String eggs;

-- is it because in C++ it'd mean something different?
Can't be, because Java already uses the syntax for something different
than C++.

Oct 10 '06 #11

P: n/a
On 10/9/06, Ben Finney <bi****************@benfinney.id.auwrote:
Bjoern Schliessmann <us**************************@spamgourmet.comwrite s:
E. g. [in Java there is] no operator overloading, but "+"
concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely

Definitely? That one strikes me more as sarcasm.
It would seem very few people know the definition of either word.
(Yes, everything Alanis Morrissette complains of in her song "(Isn't
It) Ironic" is not at all ironic, but is merely unfortunate. There's a
possibility she was aware of this...
True. In almost every wedding I have ever been to, it was pissing rain.

-- Theerasak
Oct 10 '06 #12

P: n/a
On 10/9/06, Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.comwrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:31:56 +0200, "Diez B. Roggisch"
<de***@nospam.web.dedeclaimed the following in comp.lang.python:

C++ has a lot of wicked, complicated features like overloadable assignment
statements and so on, misses GC, and is in general semantically very
overloaded. All that make programming it a real PITA, as you permanently
are at risk loosing your feet through self-inflicted gun-shot-wounds.
Sounds like a natural opening for:

http://www.reed.edu/~tuckers/jokes/foot.html
This is the motherlode of 'shot in the foot' jokes!

BTW, love the Anglo-Saxon nickname.

-- Theerasak
Oct 10 '06 #13

P: n/a
E. g. [in Java there is] no operator overloading, but "+"
concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely
Definitely? That one strikes me more as sarcasm.
Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner. Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
Oct 10 '06 #14

P: n/a
bryan rasmussen wrote:
>>>>E. g. [in Java there is] no operator overloading, but "+"
concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely

Definitely? That one strikes me more as sarcasm.

Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner. Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.
.... in America. It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Oct 10 '06 #15

P: n/a
On 10/10/06, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:
... in America. It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.
Ford Prefect: "What?"

-- Theerasak
Oct 10 '06 #16

P: n/a
On 10/10/06, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:
bryan rasmussen wrote:
>>>E. g. [in Java there is] no operator overloading, but "+"
concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely

Definitely? That one strikes me more as sarcasm.
Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner. Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.
... in America. It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.
is that '....in America' meant to be an addendum to what I said, as in
this is the situation in America and not elsewhere? If so I should
probably point out that I am writing from Denmark and was thinking
specifically of a situation where a dane told me they were being
'ironic' (when what they meant, obviously, was that they were being
ironical), when I asked what they meant by that they said "saying the
opposite of what I mean" I responded: "so, in other words, what you
mean by irony is 'sarcasm'" She responded "yes, that's what it means"

She had a degree in communications. I also know a few number of brits.
The quality of their wit is not as yet so rarified that I must strain
after its meaning.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
Oct 10 '06 #17

P: n/a
bryan rasmussen wrote:
On 10/10/06, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:
>>bryan rasmussen wrote:
>>>>>>E. g. [in Java there is] no operator overloading, but "+"
>>concatenation of strings. What if you'd like to implement your own
>>string-derived class? Ah, never mind. Operator overloading is
>>bad(tm) ;) <= Irony, definitely
>
>Definitely? That one strikes me more as sarcasm.

Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner. Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.

... in America. It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.


is that '....in America' meant to be an addendum to what I said, as in
this is the situation in America and not elsewhere? If so I should
probably point out that I am writing from Denmark and was thinking
specifically of a situation where a dane told me they were being
'ironic' (when what they meant, obviously, was that they were being
ironical), when I asked what they meant by that they said "saying the
opposite of what I mean" I responded: "so, in other words, what you
mean by irony is 'sarcasm'" She responded "yes, that's what it means"
Well, my assertion about America clearly doesn't preclude to possibility
of confusion on the part of the Danish too :-). You are right about the
general degradation of the (understanding of the) meaning of irony.
People are just too damned sloppy with language nowadays.
She had a degree in communications. I also know a few number of brits.
The quality of their wit is not as yet so rarified that I must strain
after its meaning.
A degree in communications sadly does not necessarily require complete
terminological exactitude. There's nothing wrong with being funny but
obvious <0.8 wink>

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Oct 10 '06 #18

P: n/a
bryan rasmussen skrev:
On 10/10/06, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:
>... in America. It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.

is that '....in America' meant to be an addendum to what I said, as in
this is the situation in America and not elsewhere? If so I should
probably point out that I am writing from Denmark and was thinking
specifically of a situation where a dane told me they were being
'ironic' (when what they meant, obviously, was that they were being
ironical), when I asked what they meant by that they said "saying the
opposite of what I mean" I responded: "so, in other words, what you
mean by irony is 'sarcasm'" She responded "yes, that's what it means"

Are you an american?

Irony does mean that one says the opposite of what one really means.

If you do it for humor its irony, if you do it for mocking it is sarcasm.

So now I see... americans really *do* understand irony.
--

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science
Oct 10 '06 #19

P: n/a
On 10/10/06, Max M <ma**@mxm.dkwrote:
bryan rasmussen skrev:
On 10/10/06, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:
... in America. It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.
is that '....in America' meant to be an addendum to what I said, as in
this is the situation in America and not elsewhere? If so I should
probably point out that I am writing from Denmark and was thinking
specifically of a situation where a dane told me they were being
'ironic' (when what they meant, obviously, was that they were being
ironical), when I asked what they meant by that they said "saying the
opposite of what I mean" I responded: "so, in other words, what you
mean by irony is 'sarcasm'" She responded "yes, that's what it means"


Are you an american?

Irony does mean that one says the opposite of what one really means.

If you do it for humor its irony, if you do it for mocking it is sarcasm.

So now I see... americans really *do* understand irony.
To reiterate:

Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner. Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
Oct 10 '06 #20

P: n/a
bryan rasmussen skrev:
Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner.
Yes and in Rome "salary" meant getting a bag of salt. Concepts changes.

Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.
As a Dane that is a Chronic Ironic, I beg to differ.

In Denmark at least there is a lot of difference between irony and
sarcasm. Irony is the main form of humor here, and danes takes to it
easily. People being sarcastic we don't much like.

But I guess that it can be hard to se the difference for someone not
used to irony.

I believe the reason that irony works here is that we have such a
homogenous society. Somewhere like the US where the cultural differences
are larger, it is probably a lot harder for irony to be taken as such
and not as sarcasm.
--

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science
Oct 10 '06 #21

P: n/a
Dan Bishop wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:40 am, Bjoern Schliessmann
>String eggs = new String();

The latter seems totally unnecessary to me, as well as being too
verbose
It is! All you have to write is

String eggs = "";

Unfortunately, the other object types don't have literals.
LOL. Sun likes their own String objects more than their principles,
don't they? :)
Can't be, because Java already uses the syntax for something
different than C++.
Ah, know what you mean (empty reference). That seems weird to me
too, altogether. This syntax break compared to basic types makes it
all most unaesthetic.

Regards,
Bjrn

--
BOFH excuse #248:

Too much radiation coming from the soil.

Oct 10 '06 #22

P: n/a
>For example: the overloading of assignment operators, casting
>operators, copy constructors and the like that, and the fact that
one of them is possibly chosen in absence of the other.

Isn't the overloading concept an effect of type strength? In Java,
you'd have to overload them too. Or am I missing something?

Yes. You can for example create a constructor for object Foo, which then is
implicitly chosen when assigning an int to a variable of that kind. So it
acts as a casting operator. I call that wicked, and subtle.

class Foo {
int _arg;
public:
Foo(int arg) {
_arg = arg;
}
};

int main() {
Foo f = 10;
}

>The subtle differences between pointers and references.

That's an issue, though you don't have to use them both. Kind
of "historically grown".
Who cares for the reason - it is there, isn't it? You are the one claiming
that a new language should get rid of old concepts, btw. Where is your
money, and where your mouth?
>Missing definition of static initializer order, at least for some
binary formats.

Didn't come across this one though.
I did when doing embedded programming. bites you, especially in such an
environment.
Example:

int spam = 5;

but

String eggs = new String();

The latter seems totally unnecessary to me, as well as being too
verbose -- why couldn't they go the simple way as in Python and
just state

String eggs;
The unfortunate separation between primitive (read: numbers) and complex
types (everything else) is a stupid idea, I agree. However, that is
remedied with 1.5, and beyond the odd corner case in a very well matter
(see below.)
That's a wrong decision, IMHO. A new and practical language (what
Java wanted to be) shouldn't provide 3/4-compatible syntax, but be
clear, concise and customizable, and shouldn't say "That's bad, you
mustn't do that."
That is a matter of taste - but in the same way, we could argue about C++
and C, can't we? And it "just" took the very basic things - building
blocks, control flow and classes.
>You are confusing things here. That you can't implement your own
string derived class has to do with java.lang.String being final -
something I grief about, too.

That's not exactly my point. What if I just wanted to build my own
interface compatible class ... impossible.
I don't understand that.
For a start, it just doesn't look pretty ...

String ham;

ham = "1" + "2";

... is translated to ...

ham = new StringBuffer().append("1").append("2").toString()

So what? Since when is compiler optimization a bad thing? What do you think
happens all the time when mixing types in C++? And I know of some very
elaborated schemes called "common base class idiom" for e.g. template-based
vector classes to introduce allocation optimization to arithmetic
expressions in C++.

The code _generated_ by the java compiler, and the C++ compiler, is not the
issue here. If you as a programmer can write "a" + "b", its fine. Which is
a thing to reach in C++, a bazillion of string-classes have been
written....
and in C++, you can do:

char *a = "1";
char *b = "2";
char *c = a + b;

But with a totally different, unexpected outcome.. I know where *I* start
laughing here.
Another funny thing are those awkward wrapper classes, but that's
been "patched" in an awkward way with 1.5 IIRC.
The way is not awkward, it is called auto-boxing/unboxing and works very
well. The odd corner case being e.g.

Boolean b = null;
if(b) { // NPE here
}
And this is more than matched by the subtle differences between

Foo a;
Foo &a;
Foo *a;

Diez
Oct 10 '06 #23

P: n/a
Diez B. Roggisch a crit :
The code _generated_ by the java compiler, and the C++ compiler, is not the
issue here. If you as a programmer can write "a" + "b", its fine. Which is
a thing to reach in C++, a bazillion of string-classes have been
written....
and in C++, you can do:

char *a = "1";
char *b = "2";
char *c = a + b;

But with a totally different, unexpected outcome.. I know where *I* start
laughing here.
That code doesn't even compile. And you shouldn't be using the char*
compatibility strings in C++ if possible.
Oct 10 '06 #24

P: n/a
bryan rasmussen skrev:
>
Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner.

Yes and in Rome "salary" meant getting a bag of salt.
According to Answers.com it derives from a word for money given to
Roman soldiers for buying salt, hence salary is pertaining to salt.
Concepts changes.
As was noted in my original statement the weak form of irony such as
understood by Danes and I suppose by Americans as well, since that is
what Steve was originally complaining about, is descended from the
concept of Dramatic Irony. If you do a dictionary lookup of irony
dramatic irony will probably be mentioned, also such more antiquated
usages as Socratic irony.

These other concepts of irony have not changed. You can use the word
irony in a technical manner to someone in the dramatic arts and have
the usage understood.

The weak form of irony, verbal irony, is a pretty recent addition to
the concept of irony.

To take a wikipedia discussion of the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

let's quote:
"Verbal irony is traditionally defined as the use of words to convey
something other than, and especially the opposite of the literal
meaning of the words. One classic example is a speaker saying, "What
lovely weather we are having!" as she looks out at a rainstorm
intending to express her dissatisfaction with the weather."

I believe this answers to the concept of irony as used by Danes
(especially given the example of the weather comment above which I
hear similar comments all the time.)

Given the wikipedia article and Steve Holden's description of
Americans as being clueless about irony for usages that you seem to
find correct I suppose that Americans are no more clueless or less apt
to understand Danish irony than Danes are. However, having been
exposed to Danish irony quite a bit I have to say that in my case I
understand it fine but it bores me, therefore when a Dane tells me
that Americans don't understand Danish irony I always secretly think
they probably wonder why looking out at a rainstorm and saying "What
lovely weather we are having" should be considered as a particularly
inspired use of the verbal ironical form. Also although I am not an
american I am often mistaken for one by Danes and when someone says
'What lovely weather we are having' (or similar) I will tend to be
rather ironical myself and pretend not to have understood their
comment as being ironical. And then they will try to explain irony to
me with very long and drawn out explanations. Fun stuff.

Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.

As a Dane that is a Chronic Ironic, I beg to differ.

In Denmark at least there is a lot of difference between irony and
sarcasm. Irony is the main form of humor here, and danes takes to it
easily. People being sarcastic we don't much like.

But I guess that it can be hard to se the difference for someone not
used to irony.
Yes, just what I was going to say.

I suppose that you will admit that the Danish Ironisk has the same
history as the English Irony, of course as the above mentioned
Wikipedia article mentions "Irony often requires a cultural backdrop
to be understood or noticed, and as with any culture-specific idiom,
irony often cannot be perfectly transplanted. " If you do so agree
then, as opposed to your example of 'salary', the current meaning of
irony being predominantly used to convey Verbal irony is rather
recent.
I may very well be missing some sort of meta-irony in someone saying
"What wonderful weather we're having" when its pouring in Kbenhavn's
Rdhusplads, as in a sort of self-ironical stance consisting of an
implicit statement of "what an idiot I must be for thinking it
worthwhile to comment ironically on the weather when everyone else
today has said the same damn thing. " but I don't know. The main point
is, I think, that verbal irony is understood as a meaning for irony
between various cultures and is not a unique invention of the Danes,
for unique linguistically defined concepts I think Denmark's best
strategy is still to push 'hygge'.

Now again, it may be somewhat old time fuddy-duddyism on my part to
insist on a stronger form of the word irony than verbal irony. I am
personally ready to use all the definitions of ironical forms
discussed in the Wikipedia article because they are technically
precise words and concepts for which we do not have words and concepts
other than them.

Med Venlig Hilsen,
Bryan Rasmussen
Oct 10 '06 #25

P: n/a
Christophe wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :
>The code _generated_ by the java compiler, and the C++ compiler, is not
the issue here. If you as a programmer can write "a" + "b", its fine.
Which is a thing to reach in C++, a bazillion of string-classes have been
written....
and in C++, you can do:

char *a = "1";
char *b = "2";
char *c = a + b;

But with a totally different, unexpected outcome.. I know where *I* start
laughing here.

That code doesn't even compile. And you shouldn't be using the char*
compatibility strings in C++ if possible.
It was out of my head. I remember producing some wicked pointer arithmetic
example of similar ridicule.

And the whole argument is about java having a lot of design decisions that
make it easier to work with is actually strengthened when you say that "you
shouldn't use the char* ..." - because its not forbidden, and maybe someone
else didn't follow that suggestion. I remember quite a few times calling
the stl-string-to-char-function (no idea how that is called now)

Diez
Oct 10 '06 #26

P: n/a
Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :
Christophe wrote:
>Diez B. Roggisch a écrit :
>>The code _generated_ by the java compiler, and the C++ compiler, is not
the issue here. If you as a programmer can write "a" + "b", its fine.
Which is a thing to reach in C++, a bazillion of string-classes have been
written....
and in C++, you can do:

char *a = "1";
char *b = "2";
char *c = a + b;

But with a totally different, unexpected outcome.. I know where *I* start
laughing here.
That code doesn't even compile. And you shouldn't be using the char*
compatibility strings in C++ if possible.

It was out of my head. I remember producing some wicked pointer arithmetic
example of similar ridicule.

And the whole argument is about java having a lot of design decisions that
make it easier to work with is actually strengthened when you say that "you
shouldn't use the char* ..." - because its not forbidden, and maybe someone
else didn't follow that suggestion. I remember quite a few times calling
the stl-string-to-char-function (no idea how that is called now)
Well, char* really is a compatibility feature in my mind. And it IS
useful. How else would you interface C++ with existing C code and
libraries :) That was the most probable reason you were using the STL to
char* function.

Same for the const_cast. You shouldn't use it, but sometimes, you have
to interface with a C api that takes a non const char* as paramter,
despite the fact that it won't modify it in any way.
Oct 10 '06 #27

P: n/a
Steve Holden wrote:
>is that '....in America' meant to be an addendum to what I said, as in
this is the situation in America and not elsewhere? If so I should
probably point out that I am writing from Denmark and was thinking
specifically of a situation where a dane told me they were being
'ironic' (when what they meant, obviously, was that they were being
ironical), when I asked what they meant by that they said "saying the
opposite of what I mean" I responded: "so, in other words, what you
mean by irony is 'sarcasm'" She responded "yes, that's what it means"
Well, my assertion about America clearly doesn't preclude to possibility
of confusion on the part of the Danish too :-). You are right about the
general degradation of the (understanding of the) meaning of irony.
People are just too damned sloppy with language nowadays.
Let me tell you: There are times when I'm really glad that as a German, I'm
not supposed to possess any sense of humour at all.

warning-this-post-may-be-ironic-ly yours,
Georg
Oct 10 '06 #28

P: n/a
bryan rasmussen said unto the world upon 10/10/06 08:25 AM:

<snip>
As was noted in my original statement the weak form of irony such as
understood by Danes and I suppose by Americans as well, since that is
what Steve was originally complaining about, is descended from the
concept of Dramatic Irony. If you do a dictionary lookup of irony
dramatic irony will probably be mentioned, also such more antiquated
usages as Socratic irony.

These other concepts of irony have not changed. You can use the word
irony in a technical manner to someone in the dramatic arts and have
the usage understood.

The weak form of irony, verbal irony, is a pretty recent addition to
the concept of irony.

To take a wikipedia discussion of the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
<snip>

and earlier:
Well irony originally started out as a very specific concept of the
Ancient Greek drama, this is what we nowadays refer to as Dramatic
Irony but it is the original irony. Irony then became a literary
concept for plot elements similar to Dramatic irony in books, or a
weaker type of the Dramatic irony found in the plays of Shakespeare.
People then noticed that life was at times ironic in the literary
manner. Nowadays the use of the word irony has degenerated to by
pretty much synonymous with sarcasm.

I enjoy a good round of weeping for the future over the declining
standards as much as the next pedant, but I think I must beg to differ
here.

A quick check with the on-line text of the second edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary (sadly, a link only available by
subscription) gives as the first meaning:

A figure of speech in which the intended meaning
is the opposite of that expressed by the words
used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or
ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used
to imply condemnation or contempt.

The first provided use squarely in this sense is from Sir Thomas More
in 1533. So, the language has been declining for a goodly while now,
it would seem ;-)

Best to all,

Brian vdB
Oct 10 '06 #29

P: n/a
Georg Brandl <g.*************@gmx.netwrites:
Let me tell you: There are times when I'm really glad that as a
German, I'm not supposed to possess any sense of humour at all.
+1 QOTW

--
\ "I doubt, therefore I might be." -- Anonymous |
`\ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

Oct 10 '06 #30

P: n/a
On 10/10/06, Georg Brandl <g.*************@gmx.netwrote:
Let me tell you: There are times when I'm really glad that as a German, I'm
not supposed to possess any sense of humour at all.
hehe. That's so not true.

--
"Know thyself? If I knew my self, I would run." -- Goethe
Oct 11 '06 #31

P: n/a
On 10/10/06, Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.comwrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:16:25 -0400, "Theerasak Photha"
<ha********@gmail.comdeclaimed the following in comp.lang.python:

BTW, love the Anglo-Saxon nickname.
The usage started with an old AD&D character, then got ported to a
Traveller vargr (though why an Imperial vargr and minor noble would
carry an ancient Solomani name was never explained). Since then it's
been my primary on-line name.
"You read a scroll of roleplaying jokes. You are permanently confused"

-- Theerasak
Oct 11 '06 #32

P: n/a
On 2006-10-10, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:
>probably point out that I am writing from Denmark and was thinking
specifically of a situation where a dane told me they were being
'ironic' (when what they meant, obviously, was that they were being
ironical), when I asked what they meant by that they said "saying the
opposite of what I mean" I responded: "so, in other words, what you
mean by irony is 'sarcasm'" She responded "yes, that's what it means"
And she was pretty much right. Sarcasm is by far the most
common form of irony.
Well, my assertion about America clearly doesn't preclude to
possibility of confusion on the part of the Danish too :-).
You are right about the general degradation of the
(understanding of the) meaning of irony. People are just too
damned sloppy with language nowadays.
Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is when what is meant is
different from the obvious literal meaning of the statement.
>She had a degree in communications.
Which may explain why she knew what irony was when so few
people seem to.

Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! While I'm in
at LEVITTOWN I thought I'd
visi.com like to see the NUCLEAR
FAMILY!!
Oct 11 '06 #33

P: n/a
On 10/11/06, Grant Edwards <gr****@visi.comwrote:
Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.
OH!! IT'S TEH 'META-IRONY'!! ZOMG!!!

-- Theerasak
Oct 11 '06 #34

P: n/a
Grant Edwards <gr****@visi.comwrites:
Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is when what is meant is
different from the obvious literal meaning of the statement.
Irony need not have anything to do with the meaning and intent of the
speaker. Indeed, irony can occur when there is no communication at
all; an ironic outcome does not require anyone to have said or
communicated anything.
Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic": What's
ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually contain any irony.
What source do you have for Morissette saying that? I've seen many
people saying it *about* her song, but nothing from her that isn't
just repeating what others have said.

--
\ "I was arrested today for scalping low numbers at the deli. |
`\ Sold a number 3 for 28 bucks." -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

Oct 11 '06 #35

P: n/a

Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2006-10-10, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:
probably point out that I am writing from Denmark and was thinking
specifically of a situation where a dane told me they were being
'ironic' (when what they meant, obviously, was that they were being
ironical), when I asked what they meant by that they said "saying the
opposite of what I mean" I responded: "so, in other words, what you
mean by irony is 'sarcasm'" She responded "yes, that's what it means"

And she was pretty much right. Sarcasm is by far the most
common form of irony.
Well, my assertion about America clearly doesn't preclude to
possibility of confusion on the part of the Danish too :-).
You are right about the general degradation of the
(understanding of the) meaning of irony. People are just too
damned sloppy with language nowadays.

Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is when what is meant is
different from the obvious literal meaning of the statement.
She had a degree in communications.

Which may explain why she knew what irony was when so few
people seem to.

Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.
Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?
>
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! While I'm in
at LEVITTOWN I thought I'd
visi.com like to see the NUCLEAR
FAMILY!!
Oct 11 '06 #36

P: n/a
me********@aol.com wrote:
[...]
Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?
But rain at a June wedding isn't truly ironic since it isn't the result
of the planners' actions.

It would be ironic if I chose to get married in June and then all the
people I invited instead chose to attend a conference because I wasn't
going to be there.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Oct 11 '06 #37

P: n/a
On 10/11/06, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:
me********@aol.com wrote:
[...]
Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?
But rain at a June wedding isn't truly ironic since it isn't the result
of the planners' actions.

It would be ironic if I chose to get married in June and then all the
people I invited instead chose to attend a conference because I wasn't
going to be there.
Better yet: plan an elaborate wedding and fly to Europe (or America if
in Europe) when the wedding is set to take place.

Whee!!

-- Theerasak
Oct 11 '06 #38

P: n/a
"Steve Holden" <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:

8<----------------------------------------------------------------
....... It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.
*ducks to avoid the nuclear fall out*

You should not do that Steve - they have no Sense of Humour either....

- Hendrik

Oct 11 '06 #39

P: n/a
On 10 Oct 2006 22:34:39 -0700, me********@aol.com <me********@aol.comwrote:
Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.

Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?
I hate June. June sucks. Blindly following some Roman custom relating
to Juno (the real reason why people have June weddings) + hot, humid
weather + completely impractical formal wear with a thick, unbreathing
layer of shirts and paper thin pants that never quite fit is teh sux.

I may be brown, but this time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere
when the weather is chilly but not intolerable, and one can read by
the moonlight is, OTOH, teh win.

-- Theerasak
Oct 11 '06 #40

P: n/a
I believe they are reputed to have a sense of humor.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

On 10/11/06, Hendrik van Rooyen <ma**@microcorp.co.zawrote:
"Steve Holden" <st***@holdenweb.comwrote:

8<----------------------------------------------------------------
....... It's well-known among Brits that Americans don't
understand irony. They can be pretty oblique when it come to sarcasms
too, for that matter.

*ducks to avoid the nuclear fall out*

You should not do that Steve - they have no Sense of Humour either....

- Hendrik

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oct 11 '06 #41

P: n/a
"Theerasak Photha" <ha********@gmail.comwrites:
I hate June. June sucks. Blindly following some Roman custom relating
to Juno (the real reason why people have June weddings)
Well, our traditions and ceremonies in the anti-podes (thanks SteveH)
are very Euro-centric; but we still have our weddings in the hot
months of November through February, so Juno has nothing to do with
it. I think it's nothing more than the expectation that the weather
will be clear.
I may be brown, but this time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere
when the weather is chilly but not intolerable, and one can read by
the moonlight is, OTOH, teh win.
Preach it, brother.

--
\ "If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you |
`\ wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." -- Friedrich |
_o__) Nietzsche |
Ben Finney

Oct 11 '06 #42

P: n/a
On 10/11/06, bryan rasmussen <ra*************@gmail.comwrote:
I believe they are reputed to have a sense of humor.
Some of jokes I have heard on BBC World Service bordered on the
unprofessional. :)

After the big tsunami, one of the announcers mentioned that "we've
been getting a *flood* of e-mail" only to check himself a few moments
later.

Black humor, if I ever heard it. LOL!

-- Theerasak
Oct 11 '06 #43

P: n/a
On 10/11/06, Ben Finney <bi****************@benfinney.id.auwrote:
"Theerasak Photha" <ha********@gmail.comwrites:
I hate June. June sucks. Blindly following some Roman custom relating
to Juno (the real reason why people have June weddings)

Well, our traditions and ceremonies in the anti-podes (thanks SteveH)
are very Euro-centric; but we still have our weddings in the hot
months of November through February, so Juno has nothing to do with
it. I think it's nothing more than the expectation that the weather
will be clear.
I'm positive on very few things, but I am certain that the Western
wedding custom for favoring June has to do with Juno. (That and it's
Woden's Day here in EST time zone as I write.)

Back in those days, the Roman bride wore some kind of knotted leather
thingie to the wedding. Interesting...

-- Theerasak
Oct 11 '06 #44

P: n/a
Ant

Brian van den Broek wrote:
....
A quick check with the on-line text of the second edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary (sadly, a link only available by
subscription) gives as the first meaning:
If we're going to start using dictionary definitions, then I claim that
the following joke is truly ironic:

An old blacksmith relized he was soon going to quit working so hard. He
picked out a strong young man to become his apprentice. The old fellow
was crabby and exacting. "Don't ask me a lot of questions," he told the
boy. "Just do whatever I tell you to do." One day the old blacksmith
took an iron out of the forge and laid it on the anvil. "Get the hammer
over there," he said. "When I nod my head, hit it real good and hard."
Now the town is looking for a new blacksmith.

i‧ron‧ic  /aɪˈrɒnɪk/ Pronunciation[ahy-ron-ik]
–adjective
1. containing or exemplifying irony: an ironic novel; an ironic remark.

i‧ron‧y2  /ˈaɪərni/ Pronunciation[ahy-er-nee]
–adjective
consisting of, containing, or resembling iron.

;-)

(In fact it is ironic in another more conventional sense:

i‧ro‧ny1  /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ Pronunciation[ahy-ruh-nee,
ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
....
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been,
expected. )

Oct 11 '06 #45

P: n/a
On 2006-10-11, Ben Finney <bi****************@benfinney.id.auwrote:
Grant Edwards <gr****@visi.comwrites:
>Sarcasm is a form of irony. Irony is when what is meant is
different from the obvious literal meaning of the statement.

Irony need not have anything to do with the meaning and intent of the
speaker. Indeed, irony can occur when there is no communication at
all; an ironic outcome does not require anyone to have said or
communicated anything.
>Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic": What's
ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually contain any irony.

What source do you have for Morissette saying that?
I read it on some english-usage web site -- I wouldn't regard
it as very authoritative in regards to the Alanis Morisette
quote.
I've seen many people saying it *about* her song, but nothing
from her that isn't just repeating what others have said.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I request a weekend
at in Havana with Phil
visi.com Silvers!
Oct 11 '06 #46

P: n/a
On 2006-10-11, me********@aol.com <me********@aol.comwrote:
>Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.

Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?
Not really, no.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! - if it GLISTENS,
at gobble it!!
visi.com
Oct 11 '06 #47

P: n/a

Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2006-10-11, me********@aol.com <me********@aol.comwrote:
Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.
Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?

Not really, no.
American Heritage Dictionary:
irony: 4. Incongruity between what might be expected to happen
and what actually occurs.
>
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! - if it GLISTENS,
at gobble it!!
visi.com
Oct 11 '06 #48

P: n/a
On 2006-10-11, me********@aol.com <me********@aol.comwrote:
>
Grant Edwards wrote:
>On 2006-10-11, me********@aol.com <me********@aol.comwrote:
>Like Alanis Morisette said about the song "Isn't it Ironic":
What's ironic about the song is that it doesn't actually
contain any irony.

Any? Don't people plan June weddings thinking the weather
will be nice? And isn't one of the defintions of irony when
things turn out the opposite of what you expect?

Not really, no.

American Heritage Dictionary:
irony: 4. Incongruity between what might be expected to happen
and what actually occurs.
Yup, you're right. That seems to be a usage frowned upon by
old-school types, but it appears to have become common enough
that it's made it into dictionaries.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! How's it going in
at those MODULAR LOVE UNITS??
visi.com
Oct 11 '06 #49

P: n/a
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Yes. You can for example create a constructor for object Foo,
which then is implicitly chosen when assigning an int to a
variable of that kind. So it acts as a casting operator. I call
that wicked, and subtle.

class Foo {
int _arg;
public:
Foo(int arg) {
_arg = arg;
}
};

int main() {
Foo f = 10;
}
Just looks like Java's

String spam = "eggs";
Who cares for the reason - it is there, isn't it? You are the one
claiming that a new language should get rid of old concepts, btw.
Is C++ new? :) IIRC it's well 10 years older than Java, and that's
quite a lot in IT. Apart from this, Java is constantly evolving
(through Sun), where C++ is quite a standard since <= 1998.
Where is your money, and where your mouth?
I'm not discussing for money ;)
That is a matter of taste - but in the same way, we could argue
about C++ and C, can't we?
ACK.
>That's not exactly my point. What if I just wanted to build my
own interface compatible class ... impossible.
I don't understand that.
If I'd like to write a class that is interface compatible to Java's
String, so e.g. that I can use it with "+" operator or the
simplified construction (String a = "b";).
So what? Since when is compiler optimization a bad thing?
I don't offense compiler optimization, but the clunkiness of
those "special rules for String only" additions.
What do you think happens all the time when mixing types in C++?
Mh, surely no convenience substitution in the sources for one class
only.
And I know of some very elaborated schemes called "common base
class idiom" for e.g. template-based vector classes to introduce
allocation optimization to arithmetic expressions in C++.
I don't ;) Too high for me.
The code _generated_ by the java compiler, and the C++ compiler,
is not the issue here.
Full ACK. (perhaps we were misunderstanding each other)
and in C++, you can do:

char *a = "1";
char *b = "2";
char *c = a + b;

But with a totally different, unexpected outcome.. I know where
*I* start laughing here.
Mh, in other languages you also *can* do stupid things. I'm thinking
about weird Python class designs. But Python's lack of private
variables isn't bad just because of this, is it?
The way is not awkward, it is called auto-boxing/unboxing and
works very well.
But it looks weird. Why not use classes for basic types? Is
performance really the reason? It kind of splits the language
style.
And this is more than matched by the subtle differences between

Foo a;
Foo &a;
Foo *a;
I don't think that's too subtle. But, perhaps, just because I'm used
to C++. It has a little bit too many compatibility features.

But I'd rather like to have several options than being forced in one
way.

Regards,
Bjrn

--
BOFH excuse #449:

greenpeace free'd the mallocs

Oct 11 '06 #50

51 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.