This week's book giveaway is in the Mac OS forum. We're giving away four copies of a choice of "Take Control of Upgrading to Yosemite" or "Take Control of Automating Your Mac" and have Joe Kissell on-line! See this thread for details.
personally... I found Marcus' exam more on par with the actual SCPJ test. I scored within a few % points on Marcus' exam as I did on the real thing. I thought Dan's exam questions were harder. Most have 6 or 7 possible answers (on the SCPJ most questions only have 4). I used Dan's topic exams to test myself on the sections I did poorly on or was not covered in Marcus' exam (i.e. Collections, java.lang, Assertions etc). I can't tell you the difficulty of the 1.4 vs 1.2 exam as I've only taken the 1.4. Deciding which you believe you should take, is totally up to you. I decided to take the 1.4 because I never use AWT in my work, and to learn all of it was a waste of time for me.
Jeccica, Thanks a million! Mr Dan's mock is harder than scjp? yes.....i feel it too harder to trust myself. I'm study hard to change my brain to be a jvm.
i had been a programmer (c, c++,and now java) for several years. frankly speaking, i think it no sense to examine so many many details which should be checked by compiler. in a real programming life, have a jdk in hand, these questions never be quesetion . some complaint... Do u all think so?
Originally posted by Keen Chen: frankly speaking, i think it no sense to examine so many many details which should be checked by compiler. in a real programming life, have a jdk in hand, these questions never be quesetion
That's an understandable statement, however I think knowing all the Java rules / API methods will make you a better / faster / more efficient programmer. Knowing these things can also help you to avoid logical errors --> for example -- maybe it will keep you from going beyond the maximum value of an int and ending up with a really big negative number which throws your whole program off and you don't know why -- but maybe if you'd studied for your java certification better you would have avoided the situation in the first place! <whew -- deep breath...> get it? There definitely are a bunch of rules and API's to know -- but having a basic understanding of all those principles will make you a better programmer (and who knows.... maybe a better person too )
Joined: Nov 12, 2002
Maybe u are right,since i always be a lazy boy. and i can't express my meaning exactly in English. (I am from China. so great to meet u and all kind friends here. Thx!) hmm....in a word, i believe, human -> thinking while machine -> doing. but since i had been signed up for scjp, i'll try my best to beat it down. LET'S DO IT BETTER
I agree very much with Keen. The supposed purpose of the test is convey to potential employers that a candidate has the skills and knowledge necessary to be an effective Java programmer, that is, the employer will get a good return on investment were he/shee to hire the candidate. If I were that employer, I would not want to have that EXPENSIVE employee wasting MY MONEY doing things that the FREE compiler will do, like exhaustively analysing code to see if it will compile. I would rather that employee be thinking at a higher level of abstraction, about possible runtime errors, design issues, andd how hte code will pass it's unit tests. I also would not care if the employee had a voluminous knowledge of the various API's as this can be looked up and used as needed. The end result is much more likely to be precise using this approach than relying on feeble human memory capacity. I think a much better test design would be something in the middle ground between this test and the Developer Test. Such a test would be open book API & JLS and would consist of programming small classes and/or methods that perform specific actions precisely. I believe that such a test would deliver better value to the end users of the test, which are the potential employers, than the current test design ever could. I hope somebody from Sun is observing this discussion.
kktec<br />SCJP, SCWCD, SCJD<br />"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
There are a lot of topics in the objectives that are not simply substituting a programmer for a compiler. For example: 1. The collections - using the right collection for a given job is a high level decision 2. Threads - coordinating multiple Threads, preventing deadlock, etc. is a high level decision. 3. Exceptions and Assertions - making correct use of Exceptions and Assertions is a high level programming problem. 4. Garbage Collection - if you think that is beneath your notice as a programmer, think again. Anyway - I guarantee that given two applicants with apparently equal experience, I would take the certified one. Bill
Joined: Nov 27, 2002
Bill, I wouldn't disagree with a word you said, those are all very important topics that require understanding. It's funny you should mention GC as I just helped Dan C. sort out a problem in one of the mock exam questions on that subject. Regarding the content of the Sun exams, I have no comment as I have not seen one. I guess my comments are more towards some of the stuff I've seen in the Cert. books I've got and some of the online stuff as well. Some of those seem to imply a large need for rote memorization; acting as a compiler to catch silly typos; use of obscure API methods, etc. In particular, one book went so far as to make the ridiculous claim that overloading is an example of polymorphic behavior and overriding is not. By making it a sample exam question, the author in effect implied that this was Sun's position on the subject and that you would be tested on this nonsense. Contrary to some others who claim that only overriding is polymorphic, my opinion is that both are as poly is Latin for many and morphic is Latin for pertaining to form. BTW, I've not seen your cert. book, guess I'll have to check it out. I guess I'm particularly hostile to rote memorization not because it's "beneath" me but because I don't find it all that useful as its so temporary and adds very little to understanding. It can needlessly clutter up the mind IMHO. What I would like to see in the Cert. books and mock exams is to focus on material that is directly related to the Sun exam objectives without all the extra stuff that doesn't relate to the stated objectives. This kind of focus would better help the pathetic creatures like myself who have to do all this studying. The only question I have regarding the stated objectives is the emphasis in the java.lang section on having to remember the details of all those methods. The Sun people probably have very good reasons for emphasizing this but I haven't been able to figure out what they are. As for my comments about the design of the exam, they are really just to provoke interesting discussion. I'm just one of those obnoxious people who tend to question eveything, not because I know better, but because I like to talk about this kind of stuff and I have absolutely no respect for authority. Happy trails.