Liutauras Vilda

Junilu Lacar wrote:It's a little surprising for me when I get that kind of reaction; it's as though people have never heard of top-down design vs bottom-up design. Is that something that only folks from older generations know about now? I don't get it. I grew up in the Structured Analysis and Design era and starting top-down seems more sensible to me.

Perhaps more of a thing of those specific people who never heard of top-down design (it is a bit weird though, kind of common sense thing..). These days also in computer science course you'd rather see than not a module called something similar to Systems Analysis and Design, where students are being taught about top-down and bottom-up designs. And the usual saying I heard is, that bottom-up might be suitable if the system you are designing is really small, or bigger system decomposed to something considerably small where you could take a bottom-up approach, but anything bigger than that, of course, without seeing a big picture first, would be quite difficult to think about nitty gritty details at first. Maybe not that impossible, but rather not productive, because to most extent you'd figure out at the end, that you don't need what you got, and what you need actually you don't have it.

On the other hand, depending who is your audience, but you know yourself, that's not something uncommon that people who are starting out, finding quite difficult to include into design only what is really necessary at that time, and leave out what doesn't really matter yet, so they do go to nitty gritty details too much and too early - but this is what that Systems Analysis and Design module is actually attacking, how to think about abstract ideas at first, and only then zoom in when you really have to.

Mark Sando wrote:Not sure if it's of any relevance, I use postman to hit the endpoints

Please give us a curl command you get from postman. Look for </> on the right hand side of postman and please copy/paste what you see there.

Piet Souris wrote:rot13, rot17, ...: that somehow reminds me of Advent of Code 2022, day 11!

Istvan, I don't know if you need help deciphering that, but Piet said, be ready on 1st Dec 2023.

Mark Roberge wrote:Then how do I make it executable?

Campbell is a former and non returning BlueJ user, luckily this problem could be solved without using BlueJ.

Perhaps Campbell meant that you'd need to have some sort of main method, a starting point of your program, where you could use your written library.

Do you know how that main method looks?

Fair enough. You can have 3 characters there, but then yes, you got to do something way before that.

Earlier, I wrote:And no, I did  not modify any of the actual code.

Ok, I did not realise that counts as code modification in such scenario.

Istvan, that is indeed my solution!

I never heard of rot13 before, so it was fun to decrypt your message

That's the thing, hard to discuss without spoiling. When you and others say 'character', I don't know what is actually being meant.

All I can say is, that I hope where it says "write something here" I can write anything I want, and so I did, and the solution is something what contains 3 characters (two of them being the same) in spoken language.

And no, I did  not modify any of the actual code.

It does get puzzling, doesn't it

Paul Clapham wrote:Some of which have 4 characters which are all different.

I'm certainly intrigued now.

Stephan van Hulst wrote:..it took me a few minutes to trim the answer down to 4 characters

I'm having hard times to trim up to that.

Done.

Another misleading hint: there are multiple answers to this.

Ok, in which case I need to get back to Day 16, it seems we are not done yet

Tim Holloway wrote:Ah yes. but is there a Ground Floor?

In some countries there are no Ground floors, i.e. in Lithuania.

Once you step into the block, you are on the Floor 1. No one is using arrays there.

If that gets too complicated on your end - add print statements or log statements depending on your app and where it is running.

But I'm just highlighting what Tim Holloway said. That should be it!

@OP

If your goal is to pass OCP, dedicated books like you mentioned of course are the best option, simply because they are meant for that.

Now, if you want to become effective Java developer, probably that's not enough, BUT, a very good start, that would give you a good sense about the language and its constructs.

Then of course practice would teach you more. Book what Carey suggested isn't bad, but depending on how much you got experience in JS development or development in general, may be less relevant.

Question for you.

What is the rationale for changing languages from JavaScript to Java?

I'd suggest you rather think what you like more, i.e. Frontend development, Backend development, Data science / Data engineering things? And depending on that, learn towards that, but not specific language.

Yes, naturally, depending on the area you like/want to explore and grow into, you'd find that some languages are more popular than other, but then you'd know.

Few years back I was also labelling and saying I want to be Java developer, but now I think differently - all languages are beautiful in their own way, and what matters is which area I like (backend or frontend or...), and then it really depends on the company which language they use. You want to learn more languages, and you'll have to over the time.

Sot Nikele wrote:...must be created as fast as possible..

If you care about speed, I think using streams would be slower comparing to what you had in your initial post. Like Campbell said, your initial approach might be the one to go with.

I think quite a few wondering now, why Streams? That's an implementation detail. What's the fuss about actually?