aspose file tools*
The moose likes Beginning Java and the fly likes Does Java need its basics refined? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Spring in Action this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » Beginning Java
Bookmark "Does Java need its basics refined?" Watch "Does Java need its basics refined?" New topic
Author

Does Java need its basics refined?

Richard Boren
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 01, 2001
Posts: 233
I have been learning java since March of this year and though I am new to java and OOP, I am not new to programming. I am a business application programmer � payroll, accounting, insurance... and what I need is a language that is relatively easy to use and straight forward in its implementation. Java, for the most part, fits this bill. Following is an example of what I�m getting at why..??. It seems, to me, that there are several areas within java that have to be explained at a lower level than should be required. In other words it looks like it should work like this, but it doesn�t. Though these inconsistencies can be explained away, it seems that the language should be more straight forward when dealing with such basic issues.
I am currently working through the Cattle Drive (great stuff) and a major issue with the nitpickers is readability. When I read a post like the one above I can�t help, but ask myself, shouldn�t the basics of the language have a high emphasis on readability also.
I really like java and am hoping to use it for developing application in the future. I am always amazed at how much can be done with a relatively small amount of code. I just feel that there are some very basic issues that are more complicated than need be, especially for the kind of programming I do.
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
WEll now, there is really only one underlying element at work here. And it is WELL explained in the Java Language Specification. It says:

"All things that YOU type will be converted to unicode BEFORE being processed by the compiler"

That's it. Not so hard. But it IS a founding principle of the language. It is a part of what makes the language so portable. You start messing with that, you start damaging the foundation.


"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Richard Boren
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 01, 2001
Posts: 233
I don�t understand why the foundation would have to be damaged to insulate the coder from such complexity when dealing with basic processes. Actually I don�t understand what "All things that YOU type will be converted to unicode BEFORE being processed by the compiler" has to do with it. Why can�t the coder have the same �portability�; i.e., I code it this way here and there, and get the same results.
Please forgive the thick headedness. This has been a question I�ve asked myself several times. Also I realize, to the really hardcore programmers (I think that you probably are Cindy) this is probably not an issue. It is not even an issue that I am willing to abandon java over, I just wanted to know if anyone else had the same feelings and if my feels were justified.

[This message has been edited by Richard Boren (edited June 22, 2001).]
Junilu Lacar
Bartender

Joined: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4745
    
    7

Unless somebody invents a computer that can read minds, I don't think we can ever avoid having to go into details like that. All languages have their little idiosyncrasies. As with any new language you try to learn, you have to become familiar with the little nuances that make the difference between asking "How much for a bowl?" and "How much for a night?" (in Mandarin, wan can take on either meaning (and a couple more) depending on the inflection). But that's what makes learning new languages fun, isn't it?

[This message has been edited by JUNILU LACAR (edited June 22, 2001).]


Junilu - [How to Ask Questions] [How to Answer Questions]
Conrad Kirby
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 17, 2001
Posts: 178
I get confused a lot also. But I thought all programming languages were like that . Maybe I just didn't read the sections on typecasting in C++ very thoroughly.
Cundra Mundra
Greenhorn

Joined: Apr 16, 2001
Posts: 11
I would agree with Richard,
If anything Java is complex to use on occasions. One �must� design what one wants to implement prior coding. C/C++ is easy due to its syntax; I always liked the language for its simple syntax. Why signs and symbols are easy to learn? They are self-explanatory. Java is not self-explanatory in several areas. One has to search and then paste the pieces together.
Richard Boren
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 01, 2001
Posts: 233
JUNILU, I agree with you whole heartily. I do not expect the language to program itself; however, I do feel any redundant and/or rudimentary process should be straight forward. My feeling is, I shouldn�t have to put much thought into how the compiler will actually implement basic statements each time I code them. --Something tells me one of you hardcore programmers is going to have a blast with that last statement.
Please remember this view is coming from a high level (language wise) application programmer. For me a language is simply a tool and as such I want it to be as easy as possible to use.
And, yes I have really enjoyed learning java, especially here at JavaRanch
Junilu Lacar
Bartender

Joined: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4745
    
    7

Originally posted by Cundra Mundra:
If anything Java is complex to use on occasions. One �must� design what one wants to implement prior coding. C/C++ is easy due to its syntax; I always liked the language for its simple syntax. Why signs and symbols are easy to learn? They are self-explanatory. Java is not self-explanatory in several areas. One has to search and then paste the pieces together.

And Mandarin is much simpler than English -- if that's what you grew up speaking! If you had more experience with C/C++ than you have with Java, of course you'll probably think the former syntax is easier! And if you are "pasting pieces together," your problem is a little more serious than understanding the basics of the language.
Like I said before, learning a new language is all about learning how to put your thoughts into writing that the other party (whether person or computer) can understand based on the rules defined by the language. It's not that the language is not clear, it's just that you probably didn't say it clearly enough to be understood.
It's true that some languages get in the way more than others but for me, Java is far more expressive and clear than C++. (And yes, I do know C/C++. I also know COBOL, Fortran, BASIC, RPG as well as a smattering of Malay, Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokien and Spanish).

[This message has been edited by JUNILU LACAR (edited June 22, 2001).]
 
It is sorta covered in the JavaRanch Style Guide.
 
subject: Does Java need its basics refined?