Re: How to develop without an IDE?
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 12:21:25 PM UTC-7, BGB wrote:
On 5/2/2012 11:01 AM, Lew wrote:
BGB wrote:
Arne Vajh=F8j wrote:
BGB wrote:
Arne Vajh=F8j wrote:
Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
well, both are used to make use of a library,
Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
C include includes some source code from another file in the
compilation of current file.
this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what th=
ey
do, but what purpose they are used for.
both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near =
the
top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
making them "similar".
Clearly you are joking here.
C include can be anywhere in the file.
but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or
similar, where near the bottom is also common).
"Most often" is stylistic; the discussion here is how the constructs ar=
e dissimilar, and Java 'import' must be at the top, just as Arne said, and =
that is a difference. Your so-called counterargument is irrelevant as it do=
es not countervail the difference.
They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.
yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.
And "include" is not a keyword in Java. The comparison is both inaccur=
ate and blazingly irrelevant. I know you are just jerking us around, but it=
's causing people to answer you seriously, BGB, so please stop.
I was not joking here...
Oh, my goodness. I am shocked.
this was mostly a matter of "how pedantic or technically accurate a
statement should be".
Your statements went far past pedantry deep into the territory of utter use=
lessness.
The similarity that you propose of both beginning with the letter "i", for =
example, is so stupid as to be insulting, unless meant as a joke. It's also=
wrong, since the C directive begins with "#", not "i".
Try to stay with the program here. People are having a serious discussion.
in this case, a technically inaccurate statement was used to make a
point, but the technical inaccuracy would be "excusable" under the basis=
that many people wouldn't really care that they are different in these
regards, seeing them as "similar".
It was not excusable, not even with quotation marks. C's '#include" and Jav=
a's "import" are far too dissimilar to allow anyone to muddle them. This is=
a computer programming forum, and accuracy in this area is not mere pedant=
ry.
You say "technically inaccurate" as if that somehow is different from "wron=
g".
so, the assertion is that strict technical accuracy is not always
necessary, or for that matter, beneficial.
That has nothing to do with the topic of the similarities and differences b=
etween C's '#include' and Java's 'import'. Here, not being wrong is both ne=
cessary and beneficial.
do people make a big fuss over "the sun rises and the sun sets" when
in-fact it is the Earth that is moving?
WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in Beijing?
in this case, the distinction is itself largely irrelevant.
What distinction? Are you saying the distinction between C's '#include' and=
Java's 'import' is irrelevant to this discussion, because it's not.
Wrong ideas about programming are not beneficial to programmers, and "techn=
ically inaccurate" is wrong.
--
Lew