 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / October 2006People don't seem to want to help newbies in here!
Hi all, I have been following some posts in here recently and I have noticed that whenever some newbie asks a question regarding suggestions for good tutorials, the usual answer is "Google". Get real folks, newbies wouldn't be here if they knew "which" tutorial was good for them! When I was a newbie, I had the same kind of experience where Googling would lead to tens of thousands of results and you yourselves will agree that the highest ranked results are not necessarily the best. Hope we can show some encouragement for people who are just starting out.... especially when they post here with the hope of learning from the experience of the experts. Regards, Timmy Jose. Group comp.lang.java.help is for people ask for help. Group comp.lang.java.programmer is for advance people discuss and/or resolve the problems. P.S. some college/university students don't want to spend time do their homeworks or projects. They just posted their homeworks here, have people write the programs for them. > Group comp.lang.java.help is for people ask for help. > Group comp.lang.java.programmer is for advance > people discuss and/or resolve the problems. I keep hearing this, but it is not how the groups were defined, and I would have objected during the discussion period and tried to avoid that split if it had been proposed. The following quotations are the charters from the call for votes message that led to the Java newsgroup reorganization in 1997. > CHARTER: comp.lang.java.help > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > END CHARTER. > CHARTER: comp.lang.java.programmer > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > END CHARTER. There is nothing in this that says that only "advance" people should post to .programmer. Instead, the charters focus, in my opinion rightly, on the nature of the question. According to the charters, a beginner with a difficult question should post to .programmer. An experienced programmer with e.g. a setup problem should post to .help. Based on these charters, any redirection from .programmer to .help should also be based on the nature of the question, not the person posting it. I think any change to restrict .programmer to any subset of posters should be proposed, discussed, and voted on, before being implemented. Patricia > Based on these charters, any redirection from .programmer to .help > should also be based on the nature of the question, not the person > posting it. I agree, though I'd refine the statement a little -- the group should be chosen on the basis of the kind of /answer/ desired (which is often implicit in the question, of course). -- chris >> Based on these charters, any redirection from .programmer to .help >> should also be based on the nature of the question, not the person [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on the basis of the kind of /answer/ desired (which is often implicit in the > question, of course). I agree as far as the person asking the question is concerned - they know the intent, and can make a decision based on it. Do I want this treated as a simple question, seeking a simple get-me-going answer, or do I want it considered in depth? However, people considering redirecting others from .programmer to .help don't know that intent. They only know the question, including whatever information about themselves the questioner has included. Patricia Patricia Shanahan said something like: >>> Based on these charters, any redirection from .programmer to .help >>> should also be based on the nature of the question, not the person [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Patricia The whole tree is hopelessly broken IMO. The true general programming catch-all should have been the super group comp.lang.java, not the sub "c.l.j.programmer", as that is the first stop for people who don't know how to find groups.  SignatureIt's time for everyone to just step back, take a deep breath, relax, and stop throwing hissy fits over crossposting. > Patricia Shanahan said something like: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "c.l.j.programmer", as that is the first stop for people who don't know how > to find groups. I don't know the current guidelines, but at the time of the Java newsgroup reorganization I believe there was a convention that only leaf groups should contain messages. We needed comp.lang.java as the parent node for the Java language tree. The risk of comp.lang.java.programmer getting too large was recognized, and the intent was to split it further if necessary. On the other hand, over-complicated unmoderated newsgroup structure just results in a lot of cross-posting, with little reduction in the number of messages in any one newsgroup. Patricia Patricia Shanahan said something like: >> Group comp.lang.java.help is for people ask for help. >> Group comp.lang.java.programmer is for advance [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > post to .programmer. Instead, the charters focus, in my opinion rightly, > on the nature of the question. And not even very forcibly even then. I have been hollering about this for some time, and I finally got tired of it. There is a strange acceptance of a sort of de facto ruling here which just does not exist. A kind of techno urban legend. > According to the charters, a beginner with a difficult question should > post to .programmer. An experienced programmer with e.g. a setup problem > should post to .help. And even then it's a little broadly ambiguous. "java as a language" and "programming in general" could end up legitimately becoming the target for many setup problems I've seen, since many setup problems are hard to distinguish from misunderstandings in "java as a language" and "programming in general". > Based on these charters, any redirection from .programmer to .help > should also be based on the nature of the question, not the person [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Patricia SignatureIt's time for everyone to just step back, take a deep breath, relax, and stop throwing hissy fits over crossposting. > Patricia Shanahan said something like: >>> Group comp.lang.java.help is for people ask for help. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > distinguish from misunderstandings in "java as a language" and > "programming in general". My interpretation is that the .programmer group was intended to answer programming questions and the .help group was intended for help with Java problems. For example, "I tried to install Java, but it crashed halfway through and now my registry is all FOOBAR. What do I do?" would go into .help. "I'm a beginner and I want to learn how to program in Java" would go into .programmer. But as you said, I've just accepted the non-existant defactor ruling. I gave up telling someone in .programming to post in .help and vice versa. I'll still redirect to .gui or .machine from time to time, though. - Oliver Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in news:zhKxg.5571$157.1147 @newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net: > According to the charters, a beginner with a difficult question should > post to .programmer. An experienced programmer with e.g. a setup problem > should post to .help. Unfortunately, what is, to a beginner, a difficult question is often, to experienced programmers, a FAQ or a setup/configuration problem. e.g. NoClassDefFound. Cheers GRB Signature--------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg R. Broderick gregb.usenet200606@blackholio.dyndns.org A. Top posters. Q. What is the most annoying thing on Usenet? --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in news:zhKxg.5571$157.1147 > @newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > experienced programmers, a FAQ or a setup/configuration problem. e.g. > NoClassDefFound. I think the intended distinction is: If you're having problems with a program that you are writing, post to ".programmer". If you're an end user and just want to get the damn thing to work, post to ".help". - Oliver > I have been following some posts in here recently and I have > noticed that whenever some newbie asks a question regarding suggestions > for good tutorials, the usual answer is "Google". Get real folks, I think it's realistic to suspect your average newbie poster of not having attempted Google. Online tutorials are a poor substitute for a good book anyway, at least with respect to the core language. SignatureC. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome. > I think it's realistic to suspect your average newbie poster of not > having attempted Google. Online tutorials are a poor substitute for a > good book anyway, at least with respect to the core language. Agreed. -- TechBookReport Java http://www.techbookreport.com/JavaIndex.html > Hi all, > I have been following some posts in here recently and I have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > starting out.... especially when they post here with the hope of > learning from the experience of the experts. As was already said, comp.lang.java.help is friendlier for simple questions. I also think usenet in general is best for asking very specific questions and receiving very specific answers. Usually newbies ask very general questions, and while those questions may be important, they are very hard to answer in a short usenet post. So either people don't answer at all, or answer with some canned answer that is usually not worth the (electronic) paper it is written on. Another thing to keep in mind is that almost any question a newcomer to Java will have has already been asked literally thousands of times. I think it is understandable that some people eventually get annoyed with reading the same questions over and over again, and answer with a rather arrogant tone. And finally, it is NOT unreasonable to ask people to do a little research before presenting their problems to the group. This should just be common sense to anyone asking questions, but alas, common sense is rare. Regards, Daniel Sjöblom > And finally, it is NOT unreasonable to ask people to do a little > research before presenting their problems to the group. This should > just be common sense to anyone asking questions, but alas, common sense > is rare. I agree, I've only been programming in JAVA for less than a year. But before I started posting--specific questions--I had already read 2 books on JAVA. One for beginners (a very general book, that I actually don't recommend) : JAVA: an eventfull approach using BlueJ. And my second book that I would recommend to any serious "newbie" out there: Learning JAVA by Patrick Niemever and Jonathan Knudsen, editor: O'Reilly. Which covers all the basics about JAVA and then some. Also a good place to look for specific question answers before posting is to look at the JAVA API relevent to the question. As far as tutorials go, there aren't many good tutorials out there that refer to complicated problems. You'll have much better luck getting a book related to the specific topic. Ben > As far as tutorials go, there aren't many good tutorials out there that > refer to complicated problems. You'll have much better luck getting a > book related to the specific topic. Agree wholeheartedly. In my experience its hard to go wrong with an O'Reilly book if you don't have a personal recommendation for something else. The only bad O'Reilly book I've seen, and I've bought several, is the "Sendmail" one - and that's a real clunker. Signaturemartin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | Martin Gregorie said something like: >> As far as tutorials go, there aren't many good tutorials out there that >> refer to complicated problems. You'll have much better luck getting a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The only bad O'Reilly book I've seen, and I've bought several, is the > "Sendmail" one - and that's a real clunker. If I remember correctly from my unix-only days /eons/ ago, the sendmail manpages and specs themselves were a real bear to try to understand. It wouldn't surprise me too much if a clunker of a book resulted from that. SignatureOnedoctortoanother:"Ifthisismyrectalthermometer,wherethehell'smypen???" [Martin Gregorie <martin@see.sig.for.address>] | In my experience its hard to go wrong with an O'Reilly book if you | don't have a personal recommendation for something else. well, I've never liked "Java in a nutshell". the API doc parts are redundant and the rest of the text is neither good for beginners nor of any use for more seasoned Java-developers. writing a book for beginners is hard. especially since there is more than one kind of beginner. I am currently learning Ruby, which is a completely new language to me, and I am constantly annoyed with things that are left out or prematurely included in the first part of "Programming Ruby, the pragmatic programmers guide". but on the whole, this is one of the better books I've seen. I liked the O'Reilly "Learning <...>"-books I've seen. I have bought several of them for friends in order to help them learn additional languages. | The only bad O'Reilly book I've seen, and I've bought several, is the | "Sendmail" one - and that's a real clunker. the Sendmail book is bad mainly because of Sendmail. Sendmail is a "rite of passage"-sort of thing. young men become hackers once they've written a Sendmail config entirely from scratch. then they become proper professionals the day they discover that Sendmail represents unnecessary complexity and exorcise it from their systems. I think the first really bad O'Reilly book I saw was the "Writing GNU Emacs extensions". I wish O'Reilly would get someone to write a completely new one and get an author who actually knows how to write Emacs extensions. -Bjørn > [Martin Gregorie <martin@see.sig.for.address>] > | The only bad O'Reilly book I've seen, and I've bought several, is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > become proper professionals the day they discover that Sendmail > represents unnecessary complexity and exorcise it from their systems. This is, of course, true. However, the book is additionally bad because its badly organised, fails to talk about the forest while describing trees in detail and then compounds the problem by referring to several trees it never describes. Good O'Reilly books I've used are: - Unix Systems Programming - Programming Perl (the camel book) - Using Samba - DNS and Bind - sed & awk - lex & yacc I'm less impressed by the Nutshell series, but IMO they are intended as references, not as beginners books. Looking at authors, I think some of the best computing books I've read have all involved Brian Kernighan. "The C programming language" together with the 2nd edition for ANSI C are brilliant and are excellent examples for anybody aspiring to write technical computing books. "The Practice of Programming" by Kernighan and Pike should be on the desk of anybody who is learning to program in C, C++ or Java. To get back on topic, I like Ivor Horton's style in "Beginning Java 2" and found it considerably superior to Sun's 1 week Java course as a way into the language. There may be better authors and Java books, but this worked for me. > I think the first really bad O'Reilly book I saw was the "Writing GNU > Emacs extensions". I wish O'Reilly would get someone to write a > completely new one and get an author who actually knows how to write > Emacs extensions. I haven't had that pleasure, but Bjarne Stroustroup's original C++ book belongs somewhere in the black list. Signaturemartin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | [Martin Gregorie <martin@see.sig.for.address>] | However, the book is additionally bad because its badly organised, | fails to talk about the forest while describing trees in detail and | then compounds the problem by referring to several trees it never | describes. you may be right. I have to say I haven't had to open it for years. I did manage to construct a non-trivial Sendmail configuration for an I ISP with the help of this book, so it isn't completely useless, but, as you say, the quality might have been worse than I remember. I have to confess I am not tempted to get the thing off the shelf again. I might fumble and drop it on my cat, and that would be a real shame. | I'm less impressed by the Nutshell series, but IMO they are intended | as references, not as beginners books. indeed, and thus the "Java in a nutshell"-book is largely redundant since the documentation package that comes with Java (along with the source code, I would say), is usually much more practical since this type of documentation benefits greatly from hyperlinking. (I often find myself looking to the Java source | Looking at authors, I think some of the best computing books I've read | have all involved Brian Kernighan. "The C programming language" | together with the 2nd edition for ANSI C are brilliant and are | excellent examples for anybody aspiring to write technical computing | books. "The Practice of Programming" by Kernighan and Pike should be | on the desk of anybody who is learning to program in C, C++ or Java. don't forget the books of W. Richard Stevens. to anyone who wants to write networking software or UNIX software, these are essential. | [...], but Bjarne Stroustroup's original C++ book belongs somewhere | in the black list. I have a fairly recent edition and it is by far one of the *worst* typeset programming books I have ever seen. you really have to wonder what sort of reasoning went behind decisions like typesetting code in italicized proportional fonts, for example. -Bjørn Martin Gregorie said something like: >> [Martin Gregorie <martin@see.sig.for.address>] >>> The only bad O'Reilly book I've seen, and I've bought several, is the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > with the 2nd edition for ANSI C are brilliant and are excellent examples > for anybody aspiring to write technical computing books. I'd give TCPL a B grade at absolute best. It, in my humble opinion, is not all that fantastic. >"The Practice > of Programming" by Kernighan and Pike should be on the desk of anybody [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I haven't had that pleasure, but Bjarne Stroustroup's original C++ book > belongs somewhere in the black list. SignatureEnough is enough. It is /not/ a requirement that someone must google relentlessly for an answer before posting in usenet. Newsgroups are for discussions. Discussions do /not/ necessitate prior research. If you are bothered by someone asking a question without taking time to look something up, simply do not respond. dsjoblom@abo.fi said something like: ...[rip]... > And finally, it is NOT unreasonable to ask people to do a little > research before presenting their problems to the group. This should > just be common sense to anyone asking questions I disagree. I have 1000's of posts helping people since 1995ish. And if I admonished anyone ever for not doing research first, it would have been fairly rare, and perhaps long ago. Forget the suggestions you may find online that it is rude to ask a question without research---Those are suggestions at how to get the best results, that's it. This is a /discussion/ medium. IME, that does not /necessitate/ in /any/ form of iron-clad terms prior research at all. Prior research is helpful, but there is no mandate for anything of the sort here, nor should there be. Remember: If you think you're in the majority when you state some rule regarding prior research, you have no way of gauging *what* the populace in usenet thinks. The people who admonish others for lack of research could easily represent merely 1% of the general consensus. The people who (as they should) simply ignore posts that seem like they have far too little research are doing just that---ignoring them---you likely almost never hear from them regarding this issue, and as such have no idea *what* the numbers of them may be. Do *NOT* assume that you're in the majority here when you insist on googling first. ...[rip]... SignatureEverythinginlifeisrealative.Apingpongballseemssmalluntilsomeoneramsitupyournose. > dsjoblom@abo.fi said something like: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > of them may be. Do *NOT* assume that you're in the majority here when you > insist on googling first. I agree 100% :-) When I wrote: > And finally, it is NOT unreasonable to ask people to do a little research what I really meant was that it is not unreasonable to /expect/ a little research from people before answering their questions. I too ignore posts I find stupid (for lack of a better word), and I also wish other people would do so. Let me put it this way: I read usenet for fun. I like reading considered/funny/interesting/good posts. I do not like to read about problems that could be solved with 5 minutes of research or posts whose sole content consists of GIYF, hence I also do not write those kinds of posts. 'Do unto others...' and all that, you know ;-) Regards, Daniel Sjöblom > I have been following some posts in here recently and I have > noticed that whenever some newbie asks a question regarding suggestions > for good tutorials, the usual answer is "Google". Nothing wrong with that. This group is not a help desk. If someone wants to get spoon-feed and needs his diapers changed he should go elsewhere. In the old days it was RTFM. These days it is STFW. No one is entitled to anything. Folks her don't owe anyone anything. Particular not lazy gits looking for servants. > newbies wouldn't be here if they knew "which" tutorial was good for > them! Some newbies wouldn't know their head from their arse. It would be nice if they at least have the courtesy to follow rules. Read before you write. Familiarise with local customs. Don't demand anything. Don't top post. Demonstrate that you have already thought about the problem. Don't tell us it is urgent,. Why should we care? etc. Oh, and when told to read something do so before coming back. > Hope we can show some encouragement for people who are just > starting out.... especially when they post here with the hope of > learning from the experience of the experts. *Do what you preach,* but don't tell us what we need to do. I expect to see you answering patiently one newbie post after the other in the, lets say, next six month. I fear for your mental health, but you are apparently the expert with the insight who's needed here. Or are just another troll? PofN PofN said something like: >> I have been following some posts in here recently and I have >> noticed that whenever some newbie asks a question regarding suggestions >> for good tutorials, the usual answer is "Google". > > Nothing wrong with that. This group is not a help desk. There is *everything* wrong with that. Let's take the OP's example of asking for suggestions for good tutorials. I see absolutely nothing wrong with asking for such things in that regard because he would be asking the audience of java experts what their opinions were. If you were to ask a group of folks at lunch if they knew of any good tutorials in something you're a newbie at, I'm sure you'd *love* to hear "google it first" with the implication that you've just done something wrong. ...[rip]... SignatureForgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy... > PofN said something like: > >> I have been following some posts in here recently and I have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "google it first" with the implication that you've just done something > wrong. Some of the differences that exist between 'google/usenet' and 'co-workers/lunch' are.. - Google is 'just a URL away' for Usenet users. In most instances it requires less key-strokes to do a good search, than to frame a sentence that asks the question. - It's easier to talk than type. - Google can access information from yesterday, last week or last year. OTOH - if the co-worker said the answer last week, while you were not in attendance, or were not paying close attention, you might have missed it. - You know the co-workers, but often the people that ask/answer on Usenet are strangers. There is a basis of understanding between individuals at lunch that does not exist on Usenet (usually). End results of this might be.. - The responder on Usenet does not know if the questioner is even aware of the power and utility of a quality search, with someone you know, you might have an idea. - That a person feels entirely comfortable saying things face-to-face that would go down on Usenet like a 'Lead Brick'. At lunch, I *would* consider the answer 'Google it first' to be rude, stupid or pointless - unless the person was grinning when they said it. Lunch and Usenet are not the same thing, and not directly comparable. (T.G.M. from another message on this thread) > "And how is the newbie supposed to know which of the tutorials returned by > google are of good quality? And since when does a result returned from > Google indicate "the correct answer"? And how is the newbie supposed to know which of the (books at the shop/co-workers advice) are of good quality? And since when does a result returned from (book/co-worker) indicate "the correct answer"? While the quality of books might *generally* be higher than that of 'any old web-page', being written on paper does not 'make it right'. Despite the virtues of all the fine books mentioned on this thread, I've seen some books that were absolute *crap* - they were best used as kindling. The advantage of web-pages and google in respect to accuracy are that you usually end up with more than one hit. While the information from one page might be wrong, it is unlikely that information from 3, or 7 different pages will be consistently wrong. (Or if it is, that falsehood will be repeated in the texts - if we suddenly discover 'The Earth is not flat' - which information will change first, books, or web-pages?) Oh go on.. (someone) whine about having to check several web-pages, get me started about cross referencing information from *books*.. Andrew T. Andrew Thompson said something like: >> PofN said something like: >>>> I have been following some posts in here recently and I have [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > it requires less key-strokes to do a good search, than to frame a > sentence that asks the question. Totally disagree. "say guys, you know of a good tutorial on java?" is far easier than typing in a google search and then sifting through the legion of results. > - It's easier to talk than type. Correct. ...[rest snipped]... > Lunch and Usenet are not the same thing, and not > directly comparable. I'm not comparing lunch and usenet. What I'm comparing is one discussion medium to another for purposes of obtaining information. They are far more similar than you describe. > (T.G.M. from another message on this thread) >> "And how is the newbie supposed to know which of the tutorials returned [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And how is the newbie supposed to know which of the > (books at the shop/co-workers advice) are of good quality? He asks in usenet. > And since when does a result returned from > (book/co-worker) indicate "the correct answer"? I think you're stretching here: It doesn't, but the replies you get are directed toward your question, and take into account all the details you can supply. Googling for the following, e.g., java tutorial "good for beginners" "but have used Lisp" "some understanding of OO, not much" isn't going to be any where as valuable as a sans-google post here. > While the quality of books might *generally* be higher > than that of 'any old web-page', being written on paper > does not 'make it right'. ...[snipped similar arguments]... Irrelevant. None of my points were specifically web vs. books. A google search can just as easily yield a list of books on a subject. > Oh go on.. (someone) whine about having to check > several web-pages, get me started about cross > referencing information from *books*.. :) Y'know, I've said this before. "Kids today" (I can't believe I'm actually saying that) just have *no* *idea* how hard it was to look for an algorithm that only existed in one esoteric hard to find write up in a technical library miles away. Or in school, how so much of what you did as solutions had to come without even the slightest hint. How I would have BEGGED for googleable internet in the 80's. Signature"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" There is a general rule, that is, I think, the part of the Netiquette, too. It says that one should use subject to clearly state what is her/his post about. That means that posts should not have subjects like: 'please help' 'urgent problem' but something like: 'swing problem' 'problem with log4j'. I completely ignore posts with subjects like the ones in the first group. I think that everyone else should do the same. If the subject contains enough information (second group), people with apropriate knowledge can help, and others could ignore the post. DG > PofN said something like: >>> I have been following some posts in here recently and I have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "google it first" with the implication that you've just done something > wrong. I was in a similar situation recently. I'm trying to improve my Perl style, and wanted to get hold of some examples of well-written Perl. If I had a good enough feel for Perl style evaluate to code quality myself, I would not have needed examples. My solution was to post a request to comp.lang.perl.moderated. It was presumably an acceptable solution, because if it were not, the request would not have reached a moderated newsgroup. Several people made helpful suggestions and also recommended books. Nobody told me to get lost. Patricia Patricia Shanahan said something like: >> PofN said something like: >>>> I have been following some posts in here recently and I have [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I was in a similar situation recently. I'm trying to improve my Perl > style, Not possible. The language is designed for obfuscation. :) I mean, "$|" and "$<" ??? Gimme a break.... > and wanted to get hold of some examples of well-written Perl. If > I had a good enough feel for Perl style evaluate to code quality myself, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > helpful suggestions and also recommended books. Nobody told me to get > lost. Not directed at you, but I believe that the biggest thing that many here forget is that when you are a newbie (in anything) it is not always just a matter of not knowing the answer to something. It is often not knowing how to even ask the question properly, or even what the the question should fully be. This results in very vague questions, which should not result in admonishment. SignatureFramsticks. 3D Artificial Life evolution. You can see the creatures that evolve and how they interact, hunt, swim, etc. (Unaffiliated with me). http://www.frams.alife.pl/ > Patricia Shanahan said something like: ... >> I was in a similar situation recently. I'm trying to improve my Perl >> style, > > Not possible. The language is designed for obfuscation. :) I mean, "$|" > and "$<" ??? Gimme a break.... All Perl programs are obscure, but some are more obscure than others, and wanting to write to the less obscure end is a reasonable ambition. One of my proudest moments as a programmer was when I got back to the office after being away for a day, and found that one of my colleagues, an EE who knew some Perl, had added code to cover an extra case to one of my scripts. When I looked that the code, he had not only managed to make it work - his code fitted into the structure I intended, just as though I had written it. ... > Not directed at you, but I believe that the biggest thing that many here > forget is that when you are a newbie (in anything) it is not always just a > matter of not knowing the answer to something. It is often not knowing how > to even ask the question properly, or even what the the question should > fully be. This results in very vague questions, which should not result in > admonishment. That's a good point. Asking the right question is a skill in its own right, and one that improves with experience. New programmers are often also new programming question framers. Patricia Patricia Shanahan said something like: ...[thwack]... > That's a good point. Asking the right question is a skill in its own > right, and one that improves with experience. New programmers are often > also new programming question framers. > > Patricia Of course, but go beyond that. New basket weavers are often new basket weaver question framers. So it goes for all endeavors, and we should have that tattooed in mirror writing on our foreheads. SignatureDoesn't /anyone/ know where I can find a credit card company that emails me the minute something is charged to my account? > PofN said something like: >>> I have been following some posts in here recently and I have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > *love* to hear "google it first" with the implication that you've just > done something wrong. Actually, I've done exactly that: Friend: "I wanna buy a G4 Mac." Me: "Why? They're expensive." Friend: "The OS looks pretty sweet." Me: "They've got OSX for x86 now, you know..." Friend: "Really? Sweet, I'll go check it out." Me: "Yeah, but you need like a specific Intel chipset or something..." Friend: "Oh, that sucks." Me: "I heard they hacked it so it can run on other Intel chips, but not AMD yet." Friend: "How do you do that?" Me: "I don't remember the URL off the top of my head. I'm sure if you google for 'OSX on x86' you'll find something." and also: Friend: "[forgot what he said that triggered this]." Me: "Yeah, they actually have entire computer systems that calculate traffic flow and optimize the traffic light schedules based on time of day and stuff." Friend: "Really?" Me: "Yeah, go to Wikipedia and look up 'traffic system' or something like that." so I don't find it unreasonable at all to direct someone to a search engine even in a face-to-face conversation. - Oliver Oliver Wong said something like: >> PofN said something like: >>>> I have been following some posts in here recently and I have [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Oliver .....Which isn't the point at all; please re-read the conversation. The issue is whether or not to *insist* that someone do the research on google first. Your examples had no such insistence. Signature"Realtor" and "realty" are pronounced "reel'-tor" and "reel'-tee", *not* "reel'-a-tor" and "reel'-i-tee" !!!! If you pronounce them with the extra syllable, you will sound like a complete idiot. > Hi all, > I have been following some posts in here recently and I have > noticed that whenever some newbie asks a question regarding suggestions > for good tutorials, the usual answer is "Google". Get real folks, > newbies wouldn't be here if they knew "which" tutorial was good for I have to disagree. I just now did a search on Google for "java tutorial" and the FIRST one to come up was Sun's Java tutorial, which is what I would recommend anyway for someone who just popped up and said "I don't know anything, can you give me a tutorial to read online?" http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/ So there's a good reason why we point noobs at Google: it gives you the correct answer. However long term I agree a good book is better. But online is cheaper, and quicker, so people often want to try that first. > .... I just now did a search on Google for "java > tutorial" and the FIRST one to come up was Sun's Java tutorial, * >..which is > what I would recommend anyway for someone who just popped up and said "I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > However long term I agree a good book is better. In the 'long term' a search will provide information that is current**. A book will not. There are a load of algorithms/concepts/history that does not change much over time, books are fine for those, but the one thing books are terrible at is, 'currency'. * Sun asks specifically that people do *not* mirror the Java Tutorial, even though they are welcome to download the entire document for their own use. They provide two very compelling reasons for this request. 1. Mirrors of the Java Tutorial will confuse search engines. ( it might no longer be at the top of Google's list ;) 2. ** Sun's copy is most up to date (obviously) and they don't want 'out of date' mirrors of the tutorial confusing people. >...But online is cheaper, > and quicker, so people often want to try that first. I would say I could still use books as paperweights, but then - I don't use that much paper, and an alligator clip on the wall keeps my scraps of paper in order. The *only* advantage I can see to physical books is that they can be read without a computer ('on the bus'). But with the plethora of hand-held devices with screens and wireless comms. coming onto the market, I cannot imagine that will be a barrier to e-document portability, and active web-searching, for much longer. Andrew T. >> However long term I agree a good book is better. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > does not change much over time, books are fine for > those, but the one thing books are terrible at is, 'currency'. And there isn't a load of out-of-date tutorials/advice/... on the web? So one has to be careful about the search criteria and looking for "last update" etc. > I would say I could still use books as paperweights, > but then - I don't use that much paper, and an alligator [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Andrew T. I like to have at least one book on a subject, that I regard as my "master" book. In that I add notes, pointers to other books, references to web pages etc. Personally I find that all the information I need is spread all over the place and I need a start point for the trail; the index of my master book is that point. However that might just be me; I focus so much generally that I can't keep track of the thousands of facts that some people seem to (and then, of course, there are the others who couldn't care less about edge cases and rigour :-)) I'm trying, just now, to do the same thing electronically with JNI by editing the JNI programmer's manual; maybe I will see the light, but I doubt it. SignatureBill Medland > I like to have at least one book on a subject, that I regard as my "master" > book. In that I add notes, pointers to other books, references to web > pages etc. Replace 'book' with 'web-page' and that sounds like the way I organise data. The 'web-page' is simply a bunch of links and text notes dumped int HTML and organised using <H?> sections and <UL>'s. ..How do you click on a link in a book? ;-) Andrew T. > I'm trying, just now, to do the same thing electronically with JNI by > editing the JNI programmer's manual; maybe I will see the light, but I > doubt it. The way you phrase that makes it sound as if you might not have come across The JNI Book, yet. If not then http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jni/index.html may help. Sorry for wandering off-topic ;-) -- chris > In the 'long term' a search will provide information > that is current**. A book will not. OTOH, a book is (typically) both comprehensive and comparatively authoritative, whereas the quality of a search is completely up for grabs. Regardless of the language, it isn't at all difficult to find purported tutorials giving misleading, misguided, ill-advised, and/or outright wrong advice; even poor books can be expected to be generally correct if not helpful. > There are a load of algorithms/concepts/history that > does not change much over time, books are fine for > those, but the one thing books are terrible at is, 'currency'. This is certainly true, and many have taken O'Reilly to task for the essentially pointless inclusion of a large part of the 1.5 API in the most recent iteration of "Java In a Nutshell". The trick, of course, is to locate authoritative sources of current information. > 2. ** Sun's copy is most up to date (obviously) and they don't > want 'out of date' mirrors of the tutorial confusing people. Definitely a problem, which is admittedly one reason to countenance the newbie's request for a tutorial - the amount of abjectly out-of-date material on the Internet is enormous. > The *only* advantage I can see to physical books is that > they can be read without a computer ('on the bus'). The issue IMHO is not so much the portability of physical books but the fact that many excellent texts are simply not available in an electronic format. (I also reiterate my argument concerning the high standards that can be reasonably expected of books.) Until O'Reilly and Bruce Eckel see fit to offer their work in electronic format, physical books will continue to play a major role in providing accurate information to programmers. SignatureC. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome. > The issue IMHO is not so much the portability of physical books but > the fact that many excellent texts are simply not available in an > electronic format. (I also reiterate my argument concerning the high > standards that can be reasonably expected of books.) Until O'Reilly > and Bruce Eckel see fit to offer their work in electronic format, > physical books will continue to play a major role in providing > accurate information to programmers. Actually O'Reilly offers their books in electronic format...you just need to register on their website and you can have a digital library and check out X many e-books at a time. Still doesn't replace an actual book...but maybe I'm just old fashion, and plus it's easier on the eyes. Ben said something like: > > The issue IMHO is not so much the portability of physical books but >> the fact that many excellent texts are simply not available in an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Still doesn't replace an actual book...but maybe I'm just old fashion, > and plus it's easier on the eyes. Sometimes. Have you ever noticed just how many books out there seem to think that it's okidoki to print in 8 point font or similar? If that's an exaggeration, then it certainly isn't by much. I have 20/20 vision (checked 2 years ago) but being 41 the close-up stuff (a requirement for super small type) is almost always painful. What totally irritates me about this is that the books with the smallest type often have the most insanely large margins of wasted space all around the page. WTF could possibly be the point of that. SignatureOnedoctortoanother:"Ifthisismyrectalthermometer,wherethehell'smypen???" > Ben said something like: >> Still doesn't replace an actual book...but maybe I'm just old fashion, >> and plus it's easier on the eyes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > type often have the most insanely large margins of wasted space all around > the page. WTF could possibly be the point of that. I'm beginning to find the fonts used on some web pages absurdly small (given a display resolution that makes everything else look reasonable). At least with a browser you can enlarge the fonts - although some web "designers" seem to go to great lengths to make this difficult. ... > I'm beginning to find the fonts used on some web pages absurdly small > (given a display resolution that makes everything else look reasonable). > At least with a browser you can enlarge the fonts - although some web > "designers" seem to go to great lengths to make this difficult. Fortunately, most browser manufacturers are putting their end users first - by providing them with ever easier ways to override the idiotic settings used by the deZigners. There is only one 'correct' size for fonts in web pages - '100%' (of the users default size). Andrew T. Paul Cager said something like: >> Ben said something like: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > At least with a browser you can enlarge the fonts - although some web > "designers" seem to go to great lengths to make this difficult. IE cannot do @#$% with anything CCS or similar based. You get the size you get. Drives me nuts. HOWEVER, that being said, I've discovered two things: 1. Firefox can scale fonts in almost all situations. 2. Avant (free) can scale everything in every situation I've thrown at it. If you're running Firefox and still have the trouble you're talking about, go onto avant. You'll see what I mean. I'm using firefox currently, but am getting *MIGHTY* sick of its startup time. Avant is by comparison blazingly fast, and outraces IE and Firefox even for the display of pages. Signature"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" > If you're running Firefox and still have the trouble you're talking about, > go onto avant. You'll see what I mean. So why haven't you provided a link; do expect us to Google for it ?!? ;-) -- chris >> If you're running Firefox and still have the trouble you're talking about, >> go onto avant. You'll see what I mean. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -- chris There are two version of Avant: - One based off of IE (http://www.avantbrowser.com) - One based off of Mozilla. This is Orca Browser 1.0 RC 3 (http://dl.filekicker.com/send/file/166091-YKTW/osetup.exe) The same person wrote both Browsers. I prefer the Orca version. Thanks in Advance... IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA http://weconsultants.phpnet.us __________________________________________________________________________ 'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"' -William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-) > There are two version of Avant: > > - One based off of IE (http://www.avantbrowser.com) > > - One based off of Mozilla. This is Orca Browser 1.0 RC 3 > (http://dl.filekicker.com/send/file/166091-YKTW/osetup.exe) So there are! I /did/ Google for it, but only found/noticed the IE-based version, and instantly rejected that as untrustworthy -- chris Chris Uppal said something like: >> There are two version of Avant: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -- chris Being IE based might not mean that it brings all the baggage and crap-notions of IE with it. It might mean that it is only using the underlying .dll's for the rendering. Avant could well be supplying all the additional features that IE doesn't and still use the IE dll's. {shrug} I just don't know---in fact, I didn't even know there were two versions of Avant. I'm using the IE version apparently (http://www.avantbrowser.com/download.html) and am pleased at all it can do with resizing that IE cannot. BTW----I haven't tried the Mozilla based version, but is that going to suffer from the same startup lag? Signature"His name was Robert Paulson. His name was Robert Paulson. His name was Robert Paulson..." [me:] > > So there are! I /did/ Google for it, but only found/noticed the > > IE-based version, and instantly rejected that as untrustworthy > Being IE based might not mean that it brings all the baggage and > crap-notions of IE with it. "Might not" isn't /nearly/ a strong enough reassurance -- remember we are talking about security here, not functionality. "It seems to work" is a fine test in practice for functionality; it is of no value whatsoever for security. Actually, I would go further than that. [The rest of this is based on my limited attempts to master the MS APIs for the IE HTML component] The security model of the HTML component is obscure and ill documented. That is /fatal/ for security. The model has to be clear and precise -- MS's is neither. I admit I didn't spend long looking at it (on the grounds that if I /do/ have to spend a long time looking at it, then it is not trustworthy), but I didn't even manage to find out what my responsibilities were as a programmer using the control and desiring complete control over the thing's external actions. Also the security model has to be designed in from the start -- and (as a matter of history) MS didn't do that. Indeed, they choose a basic execution model that was almost impossible to make even moderately secure since they /wanted/ the HTML rendering process to have full access to the power of the computer. Note that even just /parsing/ HTML is a major problem (not specifically to MS's products), since the JavaScript stuff determines what the HTML actually is -- so it has to run in tandem with the parser. It is that, plus the fact that MS's JavaScript stuff is part of its system-level scripting stuff, which makes me refuse to consider that component for any production use except where the text to be parsed is generated by the application itself. I'm not claiming that MS's control is inherently worse than the engine in Firefox/Mozilla -- I don't have enough data about the latter. I very much doubt whether the Gecko engine is as safe as it might appear at first glance (the JavaScript problem again). However, all things considered (including non-functional aspects such as relative popularity), I'm happier using a Gecko based browser for my own web wanderings, and would be /less/ reluctant to use it as the basis of an application requiring HTML rendering. -- chris Chris Uppal said something like: > [me:] >>> So there are! I /did/ Google for it, but only found/noticed the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > test in practice for functionality; it is of no value whatsoever for > security. Something you feel strongly about Chris? lol....ok Thanks for information, you've given me something to think about. ...[informative post snipped]... SignaturePuzzle: You are given a deck of cards all face down except for 10 cards mixed in which are face up. If you are in a pitch black room, how do you divide the deck into two piles (may be uneven) that each contain the same number of face-up cards? Answer (rot13): Sebz naljurer va gur qrpx, qrny bhg gra pneqf naq syvc gurz bire. > Being IE based might not mean that it brings all the baggage and > crap-notions of IE with it. It might mean that it is only using the > underlying .dll's for the rendering. To me, this is enough of a reason to reject it, as IE's rendering system is broken. - Oliver Oliver Wong said something like: >> Being IE based might not mean that it brings all the baggage and >> crap-notions of IE with it. It might mean that it is only using the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Oliver Perhaps. But an interesting thing has happened in that regard. When people design web sites, they almost always design *for* IE first. The reason has to do simply with numbers. Thus to a large extent, whatever IE does ends up becoming a standard unto its own. Broken or not. Signature"Realtor" and "realty" are pronounced "reel'-tor" and "reel'-tee", *not* "reel'-a-tor" and "reel'-i-tee" !!!! If you pronounce them with the extra syllable, you will sound like a complete idiot. > Oliver Wong said something like: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > people design web sites, they almost always design *for* IE first. The > reason has to do simply with numbers. When I design sites, I design them for W3C's HTML standard first, and then apply tweaks to get them to look decently in IE6. I'm not alone in this (as a link I will post in a moment will demonstrate). > Thus to a large extent, whatever IE does ends up becoming a standard unto > its own. Broken or not. Apparently IE7 will not stick to the same "defacto" standard that IE6 created. See http://www.acko.net/blog/the-ie7-myth Thus, if you coded for IE6, you'll have to redesign your site when IE7 comes out. - Oliver Oliver Wong said something like: ...[rip]... > When I design sites, I design them for W3C's HTML standard first, and > then apply tweaks to get them to look decently in IE6. I'm not alone in > this > (as a link I will post in a moment will demonstrate). If you design for a unified HTML standard and then concentrate first on applying the correct tweaks on getting it to work with IE, then you are most certainly in effect coding it first for IE. Tangentally, if you are designing for a unified HTML standard and then not directing your attention afterwards toward IE first, then you are shooting yourself in the foot, due to sheer numbers alone. >> Thus to a large extent, whatever IE does ends up becoming a standard unto >> its own. Broken or not. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thus, if you coded for IE6, you'll have to redesign your site when IE7 > comes out. I don't doubt that for a second. However whenever IE rev X comes out, *it* will be the primary focus until rev X+1 comes out, at which point X+1 is the primary focus. That E7 establishes a differing set of requirements, and puts IE as an insane moving target is profoundly aggravating, but doesn't change the motivation for using it (at whatever rev.) as a "standard" to aim for. No matter how much redesign it causes. SignatureIf I can ever figure out how, I hope that someday I'll succeed in my lifetime goal of creating a signature that ends with the word "blarphoogy". >> There are two version of Avant: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -- chris Yea, sorry I can not remember how I tripped over the Orca browser. It was about a year ago. I know that I was looking at the Avant version. Orca does have a home page at http://www.orcabrowser.com. Problem is it is not functioning yet. As I understand it the Orca version has not had any updates for the last seven months. It is still in it's initial Version at RC 3. I understand that once the author get the latest Avant browser up to version 11 he will start working on the Orca version. Maybe this is the reason the Orca website is not functioning yet. I have never had any problems with using the Orca RC 3 that is available now. I think new versions will make it faster and add new functionality. I have heard it call "Dr Orca". As i mentioned there is a website that is not functioning yet for Orca. I think that, as with the IE version, the DLL's are used based off the Mozilla and IE browsers respectively. In fact I was in one of the Orca forums and someone else, not the author, built an update for Orca that would update the Mozilla DLL's. I think it was from 1.5.0 to 1.5.1. The place to keep up on Orca, presently, is the Orca forums. I am real happy with the Orca browser. Wikipedia http://www.answers.com/topic/avant-browser http://digg.com/software/Orca_Browser_1.0_Release_Candidate_3_beta Avant Browser community forum (Orca Browser Group): http://forum.avantbrowser.com/index.php You can google for Orca Browser. Most are not in English. Thanks in Advance... IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA http://weconsultants.phpnet.us __________________________________________________________________________ 'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"' -William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-) IchBin said something like: >>> There are two version of Avant: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I have heard it call "Dr Orca". "dorka" ? lol.... Seriously though, I'm missing the /why/ . Is their an advantage to an Avant/mozilla over Avant/IE? You need not convince me of mozilla vs. IE, but having Avant on top is hardly just a sugar coating. ...[ker-snip]... SignatureDoesn't /anyone/ know where I can find a credit card company that emails me the minute something is charged to my account? > Paul Cager said something like: > > I'm beginning to find the fonts used on some web pages absurdly small ... > IE cannot do @#$% with anything CCS or similar based. You get the size you > get. Drives me nuts. Actually, it can. - IE has no problem resizing fonts specified as '%' (rather than 'px' or 'pt' sizes) - there is a menu item for it. - Font sizes that are supposedly 'locked' can be unlocked by going into a 'well hidden' accessibility option and.. (checks) selecting 'Ignore font sizes on web pages'. - If web deZigner color schemes clash with a user's red/green color blindness, the user can even .. 'Format documents using my stylesheet' And this is back in 'ol IE 6.0.2600. I can only imagine they have made these options more prominent in the meantime. Hurrah! [ But the real problem is getting this information to the end user's. "..What's a 'stylesheet'?" ] Andrew T. Mark Space said something like: >> Hi all, >> I have been following some posts in here recently and I have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So there's a good reason why we point noobs at Google: it gives you the > correct answer. And how is the newbie supposed to know which of the tutorials returned by google are of good quality? And since when does a result returned from Google indicate "the correct answer"? SignatureOnedoctortoanother:"Ifthisismyrectalthermometer,wherethehell'smypen???" >Mark Space said something like: >>> Hi all, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >google are of good quality? And since when does a result returned from >Google indicate "the correct answer"? Well, my post from earlier today seems to have been lost to history. Anyway, the compiler, javac.exe appeared after all, in C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.5.0_07\bin java.exe was in a directory in the %path% and javac.exe was copied somewhere else, making me think that java was there, and javac wasn't. So my little "Hello World" program compiled. Of course it doesn't run; one shouldn't expect such extraordinary success of getting a computer program to say "Hello World" without at least three days work, and I'm only on day 2. Tomorrow, I suspect I'll find out how to download the necessary "swing" class libraries that allow java to output data to the screen. These things rarely go as I foresee, though. Now maybe I don't understand the philosophy behind the java programming language, but shouldn't a programming language have the ability to perform basic input/output functions without importing custom user-defined functions and class libraries? I guess I'm just an old-timer. ~Frustrated. Don't worry about answering these things. I've looked around a little on the site and it really does look to me like you've been taking care of your newbies. Since I'm in a class, I'm sure I'll get all my questions answered, and since it compiles and runs on the lab computers, it's not at all urgent. I just hope to be able to continue to use Java once the class is over... Just wanted to gripe a little bit. So you can commiserate, or give some helpful advice, or yell at me for not reading the right tutorials, which your primarily volunteer staff has slaved over, and probably doesn't get nearly enough appreciation. He ZOLZAN Timmy Jose! What's up man? Didn't you want to help answering all the poor newbie questions? Why no single answer from you? Not in this thread, not for newbies. You awfully smell like a troll. Or is your new job at HP keeping you busy? well the best tuts that i can sugest is www.java.sun.com really that is were i learnt all of what i know from.... Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.