Slashdot Mirror
Head First Java
The Good
Of course, you can't learn Java without a good understanding of object-oriented languages. I made fairly heavy going with 'Learning Java' until I decided to dive in head first. Head First Java, that is -- a new book from O'Reilly that has a totally different attitude to teaching than I've seen before in computer books. It also looks like this might be the start of a series from O'Reilly, the website an introduction seem to assume that there will be more 'Head First' titles and I hope so. The style is humorous, full of graphics, cartoons, puzzles, quizzes and crosswords. It reminds me of the textbooks that used to try and teach me geometry and algebra in high school or my daughter's elementary books on Roman and Greek history I purchased for her at the British Museum. The style didn't work to teach me much algebra and geometry, but I wasn't anywhere near as motivated. This time, it worked. In a couple of weeks I worked through the book and finally have Java skills where I can branch off and start coding the projects I had in mind (though something more advanced will be required soon.)
In the introduction the authors examine learning and explain why they designed the book as they did. To quote from one section: "Some of the Head First learning principles. Make it visual. Put the words within or near the graphics. Use a conversational and personalized style. Get the learner to think more deeply. Get -- and keep -- the reader's attention. Touch their emotions." They argue that our brain is tuned to novelty, and that their style provides the novelty to keep your brain turned on. They also provide ten tips for good learning. That's one thing that seems to set this book apart from most other computer books, they say they think of their reader as a learner and indeed that's the way you are treated by the book. You can start to get a feel for their ideas by visiting headfirst.oreilly.com, a site devoted to the series. You can also grab a couple of example chapters from the books web page, which also has the usual marketing info, table of contents and errata.
The BadWhen compared to Learning Java the coverage is not as good. Head First really only covers the basics, up to and including creating a GUI with SWING and then touches a number of others; Learning Java goes on to explore, with a fair depth, network programming, web programming, servlets, applets, Java Beans, XML and other topics that are only touched on briefly in Head First. If the style of learning does not suit you then this will be an incredibly irritating and useless book, I'd give it a try first, though. If it isn't for you then the style of Learning Java might be better.
ConclusionWhen you get down to it, though, the only way to really decide on the worth of a tutorial is to decide how well it teaches. Head First Java excels at teaching. OK, I thought it was silly, I had a hard time making myself do the exercises, fill out the crosswords and solve the puzzles. Then I realized that I was thoroughly learning the topics as I went through the book. Learning Java was doing the same job, but the dry traditional method wasn't doing as well. Both books are well written, designed and constructed -- the style of Headfirst Java just made learning, well, easier.
It would seem to me that the 'Head First' approach is going to work wonderfully for the more 'beginner' topics, books for introducing you to a new style of programming, a new language or a radically different operating system or application. So if you're looking for a book to introduce you to Java then I can recommend Head First Java. Now if I could only find a book as good to introduce me to Common Lisp.
You can purchase Head First Java from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
In the introduction the authors examine learning and explain why they designed the book as they did. To quote from one section: "Some of the Head First learning principles. Make it visual. Put the words within or near the graphics.
"The habit of using pictorial aids, like any habit, is very difficult to get rid of. If, however, we take any responsibility for the effectiveness of our thinking habits, we should try to get rid of the habit as quickly as possibile, for it is a bad habit, confusing and misleading up to the point of being paralysing."
..."Mr Bunny's First Cup o' Java"
668: Neighbour of the Beast
The Java Cookbook is the way to go for beginners.
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/javacook/
It is almost like somebody saying - I wanted to study cartography because I already know something about cars.
The current W3C approved release of it is, I believe, currently referred to as ECMAScript, in an attempt to separate the two. (The ECMA is a European governing body on standards, and I do not recall what it stands for at this time).
I wouldn't mind seeing them separated like that - it would make more sense and minimize confusion, as well as the interleaving of books in bookstores. "Java... Javascript... hell, they must be the same thing!"
Brazil has decided you're cute.
How can Java be slow? It's a language. Languages typically can not be quantified by speed.
;)
Implementations are a different story, however. What you mean to say is that in your non-benchmark toting experience, Sun's Java Runtime Environment, version 1.4.2 is slow. On this, I will agree.
You might want to investigate the other implementations of the JRE out there. IBM has one that is reportedly quite good. (Well, one person has told me it was worth it.) There is also Blackdown.
Regarding licensing, I also agree. It's muddy at best, and akin to selling your first born to Sun at worst. Depending on your vantage point, of course.
best book on java imo, and its free to try out
http://mindview.net/Books/DownloadSites
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
There could be a sort of natural progression there, though.
Maybe our reviewer was building, say, a Javascript-based navigation system for a website and decided to do it in Java to avoid cross-browser issues.
Oh, and the W3C never standardized JavaScript. ECMA did with ECMA-262.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Sorry, but I think you are wrong on this one.
.Net framework -will- make money from the Java R&D ;)
There are a LOT of programmers out there with no experience of anything other than C, C++, Visual Basic, Perl etc etc. Just because students are taught Java and industry DEMANDED Java don't blame people for making a lot of money out of it!
Also, why should programming be hard? It shouldn't be. If I can find any tools, languages etc that make my job easier, quicker and less stressful I use them. And if I can be quicker it will be cheaper and if I am quicker and cheaper, I keep my job.
If my boss comes to me with a business problem and it can be solved in a day with Java, as opposed to a couple of days in Perl, VB or whatever then the business will make a decision to go with that.
I agree Sun won't get back it's R&D on Java, but I guess that MS with the
I found "The Object-Oriented Thought Process" to be a great jumping-off point in helping me familiarize myself with how to think in-terms of OOP.
The intro to OOP chapters that are in most introductory books are OK, but they just didn't do enough for me.
if you want to learn a particular Java aspect look at Sun Java Tutorials. (they are excellent a free).
If you want to leatn OO programming and Java I would suggest Think In Java (it's the best and it's free).
----
I'm going to send a memo to the top 300 US companies (any index, take your pick) and inform them that all this time they were wrong about implementing business solutions in Java. Why? Because you (mallocchio) took the "oppertunity" to say that it "sux". Instead they should be using something light, like C, or maybe even assembly if they're hardcore enough. I mean, all these hundreds of corporations can't possibly be right. Their projects obviously have all failed because they used Java.
I mean the only reason Java is popular in the enterprise world is because of Sun's wonderful marketing department. Those sneaky bastard marketers ... they got the best of us. I mean they totally did their jedi mind trick on me -- I'm gonna have to cut off my head now because it's now known after your esteemed declaration that "Java sux".
P.S. I know you're trolling.
Most modern JVMs compile Java bytecode to optimized native machine code. If you spend most of your execution time in your application (not the JVM), Java is quite competitive with C.
If you're interested in seeing how this really works, I'd suggest downloading the IBM Jikes RVM (Research Virtual Machine), which is a JVM/JIT compiler that is almost completely written in Java (it actually can recompile itself at runtime, in addition to your application). Since it's written to be a platform for compiler research, it's not the fastest JVM on the planet, but it has reasonably well-documented code and it certainly does what you described.
/ \
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
x
/ \
Has got to be the Core Java Series. Between the fundamentals and the advanced books, I haven't found anything as complete and as clear as this.
This is the first time I've tried to look at a story with 63 comments with my threshold set to 5, no comments showed up!
Somehow I knew though, when the article starts with I decided to learn Java because Javascript wasn't good enough., that there would be trouble!
Begun, the Javascript != Java flamewars have.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
The dot com years produced millions of Java "programmers" that did not how to do much beyond blindly mimicing the Sun "Pet Store" J2EE example without understanding the fundamental concepts that underpin the technology.
How many other languages can you fill in the blank with? VB? C# (soon?)? Perl?
Sure there are folks who "learned" Java and really don't understand it. And sure, most of them are out of work...but calling it a "glut" is a bit of an overstatement. Most of those people won't find work in the industry. And if you're good a programmer, and work for a good company, you're still making good money these days (at least where I live).
There's a huge glut of programmers on the market with little or no experience using any other programming language other than Java.
So what if that's the only language you know? If you're a good Java programmer, what's the problem? I know a couple guys who just graduated with degrees in computer engineering. They "learned" plenty of languages in 4 years, but they only know one language well enough to use it professionally -- either C or Java.
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
I saw some 6-year old kids talking the other day. Kid 1: Have you seen my website lately? Kid 2: no. Kid 1: It has a new layout now. Kid 2: cool!
It's only a matter of time before these kids will want to learn JAVA, and a basic, picture-laden book is sure to attract their attention quicker than a tome that they probably can't even lift.
stuff |
No, he has not fallen under any misconception.
His problem was that he found that he could not achieve what he wanted using a javascript (an arguably limited web-baed scripting language) and decided to move to another language with more powerful features.
well considering you opted for the coward route, how is anyone going to take you up on that one!
plus, i entirely disagree with you, i have php applications that pull data from mysql faster than an equivalent java application.
the JAVA advantages, for me, are:
- OO through and through
- scalability in the form of J2EE
- well writen java is a pleasure to read and understand
- cross-platform
- fantastic package library and 3rd party packages
- sun screwed up and gave it away!
About them Java Coders,
codin' here and there.
Just like Gosling's Keynote said,
Java's Everywhere!
Them platform neutral Java Coders,
runnin' hotspot mode.
Keep them classes nice and neat,
'til it turns bytecode.
Multi-threaded Runnables,
and Serialization,
keeps those members all in line,
avoiding race condition.
How to be a Java Coder,
here's thee easy way:
Go to sun.com's web site
and get the SDK.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Java is just an OO-Language so I don't see how you can say it is "bad" for the industry. And personally, I get tired of seeing the same negative criticism being leveled time and time again as if the thing has never progressed in the last 5 years. I work with Java everyday and have watched it improved dramatically with each new release. But I'm meandering..back to the original point. Java is just a language. Your effectiveness with Java is only as good as your understaning of the OO principles that it is built upon, and THAT is where I see problems. It sounds like what you're really biting at is that you've seen a lot of people, rushed into the market, who *surprise surprise* can't code their way out if a paper bag. How is that Java's fault? Are you suggesting they would have been better programmers had they been rushed through C++ instead? Dot com boom/bust had nothing to do with Java. If you want to blame anyone, blame the VCs. They're the ones who spoon fed money into dumb projects creating the market for overpaid poorly trained programmers in the first place. The fact many of them may have learned Java is beside the point.
As far as good or bad for the industry... well.. you don't really define what your industry is. Software house for the most part don't use Java. I personally feel it's an "IT" language, and the IT shops/people that I've been involved with LOVE Java for its productivity and cross-platform compatibility.
This is far, far, too far away from being the best book on Java.
:
I'll even argue that this is not a good book at all. As always Mr. Eckel is going on and on with a 2-3 pages of reflections and a small piece of programming practices(everyone who've tried to read the C++ thinking, know for what I'me talking about), so my point is
1) The book will be confusing for a beginner programmer.
2) It'll be useless for the most part to a person with some general programming culture.
Anyway, the best book to start with java is "On to Java", I don't even remember the authors but it's everything: Short, explicit and well structured. A problem may be that it should be a bit outdated.......
Of course, all one really need to start programming in Java is here
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
The majority of developers do NOT fully understand OO principles. There is a difference between learning the syntax and the basic features and understanding how to leverage them. Most OO developers can write and use simple classes, use inheritance and basic polymorphism. This is generally all that is taught in courses and language books. This is also sufficient to get most things done. :)
However, most people this level of knowledge do not understand just how much more can be done. A good example of more powerful OO programming is in the Gang of Four book. The conceptual leap from procedural to basic OO programming is but the first step.
I guess what I'm getting at is that once you're at this point where you're using basic OO techniques, then there's still a lot more you can learn (even if you know each and every language feature and its syntax). Just be aware of that and look into it someday.
Madness takes its toll. Exact change please.
Right, and by that logic Python is related to Java 'cause you can instantiate Java objects in Jython. And C is nearly the same as lotsa languages, 'cause lotsa languages have C extensions which allow you to instantiate C objects in the language. Javascript and Java have only the notion of being roughly C-looking languages which came out at roughly the same time, and were both championed by Netscape.
You can do a static compile of java into machine dependant bytecode using gcj if you are into that.
I do a lot of server side Java and I have never had a speed issue. Its much more likely to be a database issue that slows up the app than the execution of actual byte code. Remember that web/app servers ALWAYS top out on io before cpu anyway, so the fact that the Java server is running at, say, 40% cpu instead of 20% doesn't mean a heck of a lot.
After that read Java Development With Ant by Hatcher and Loughran for good info about how to set up real java development environments. Ant is a tool that fits a similar ecological niche as make, but has tons of extra features particularly useful to Java developers.
Oh, and don't bother with an ide. Real men use vim.
Hi, I'm Pat Niemeyer, the author of Learning Java. As I sat down this morning to begin work on the fifth edition of the book for Java 1.5 I was
;);)
pleasantly surprised to see this item on Slashdot (my first stop of the day). So I thought I'd chime in with a little bit about what it's been like working on this book over the years and ask for you help in making it better.
The short story is that trying to authoritatively cover a topic as broad as the Java language and libraries and to do so without simply producing a giant shelf-filling reference tome or dry as toast text book is a very difficult challenge. I think there are parts of the book that have met this challenge and parts that can be better in the future.
Now, I consider myself to be a relatively funny and creative person (also sexy, and other adjectives as well) and I think if someone had asked me back in 1995 what my first book would have been like I might have imagined something a bit lighter and breezier than an 800 page book about a programming language. But I think that the Slashdot audience in particular will appreciate that despite its size and some obligatory coverage, this is a book written by someone who has a passion for software and architecture and that I have tried to pour my creativity and time into crafting elegant, insightful, and *minimalist* examples. I wrote this book for people who think and learn the way that I do and that may not appeal to everyone.
I think the strongest parts of the book are in the most exciting and difficult areas of Java - topics such as advanced networking, multi-threaded
programming, and XML. IMHO Learning Java's coverage of these topics is deeper than some single topic books in their entirety.
The Java language is a moving target and one that gets more moving parts every day. The greatest challenge in writing about it now is not what to cover, but what to leave out. I have spent many many hours on the phone with my editor (Mike Loukides) over the years debating about what we need to include and what we need to cut. In recent editions which have included a CD in the jacket (yah, I know... book CDs are normally useless) I have started moving the old, less relevant material (such as some of the original AWT API stuff) to the CD.
I have also experimented with the introductory tutorial chapter - trying to give a broad overview of the whole language in one chapter before diving into details. Some people may see that and be turned off. I hope they'll dig a little deeper.
I am very interested in what Slashdot readers have to say about how to make the book better. Your comments would be very well timed right now as I am updating the book for Java 1.5 as we speak.
I hope you'll check out my book if you need to learn (or learn more about) Java. If you have already mastered Java then I hope you'll buy a copy of my book and give it to a homeless person
Thanks,
Pat Niemeyer
Author of Learning Java, O'Reilly & Associates and the BeanShell Java scripting language (www.beanshell.org).
Here here to the Bruce Eckels sugesstion. He is far and away one of the best authors on the topic of OOP. Further, he does a lot of training, etc... and has made most/all of his books freely downloadable.
Good try - but Dijkstra wasn't talking about education, he was talking about abstraction. Remember his example? - where he mentions drawing an "abstract triangle", and how as soon as you have drawn a specific triangle, then you have made concrete decisions: "does it have an obtuse angle" etc. Dijkstra's point is that when you represent a general concept using a specific example, you get blinded to the possibilities offered by alternative examples. And he's right - to a certain degree.
You see, the counter to this is Richard Feynman. Do you recall in "Surely You're Joking?" when he mentions how he'd try to understand mathematicians by visualizing everything they said? "Take a set (a ball) - disjoint (two balls) - and then add hair, slice them up etc etc". I've used that technique ever since I read about it when I'm following arguments, and it works a beaut. It worked for him, because the mathematicians had probably not got their heads out of the equations to look at what they were doing.
So I think visualization is great (or even essential) for following a line of a complex argument or learning a technique - and that's where diagrams come in. However, unless your visualization is a perfect representation of the thing you're learning, it won't instruct you much about where the process *doesn't* work (unless it fails for your chosen example!). For instance, you won't find many pictures that can show you a nice OO class relationship, whilst simultaneously telling you much about *inappropriate* relationships.
In programming, mathematics, and any other "reason-oriented" activity, it's these negative cases that catch you out: the exception cases and unexpected inputs, the accidental divisions by zero - in short, the assumptions that you build in because you're focusing about the one way it should work, not the ways it won't. And so in practice, good experienced programmers need to clear their mind to see what they've written, not what they *think* they've written, and that, I think is Dijkstra's point.
But it's not got a lot to do with learning a new craft. And that's why good teaching books have good diagrams and plenty of manageable, relevant examples.
BTW - a good case of what Dijkstra is talking about is shown in the ancient search for the truth behind Euclid's 5th Postulate - where people got bogged down for centuries because they thought that the LINES and POINTS in geometry had to correspond to lines and points on a flat surface - plane geometry. But as soon as they abstracted it and stopped visualizing it, and treated LINE and POINT as abstract entities which simply obeyed the Rules, it gave rise to spherical and hyperbolic geometry. "Godel, Escher, Bach" tells the tale nicely!
Or the girl in the bathtub, or, well, about 98% of what's in a Head First book. And this was deliberate. I'm the co-perpetrator, and creator of the Head First series.
Personally, and as smart as he is...Dijkstra is just not someone I would have ever wanted to date, or even sit next to at a dinner party.
And wasn't he also the author of something to the effect of, "Anthropomorphizing is the sign of an immature mind?"
Well, we blew that one Big Time. I think half the book is anthropomorphized *things* -- objects, variables, threads, you name it, we've turned it into a living breathing (sometimes swearing) thinking *feeling* creature.
We'd like to counter Dijkstra with someone we feel certain would kick his ass in a celebrity boxing match. Roger Schank. He was chairman of the computer science dept at Yale (and director of the artificial intelligence project). Last I heard he was Distinguished Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. (OK, as far as the boxing thing goes, Schank does have the advantage of being alive...)
And since we know some people will be misled by the pictures into thinking that it must be a "for the lesser mind" , or that, "if it's that fun, it must not be serious." we can point to some heavy hitters who have endorsed the book (on the cover) . One is a former PARC guru and now the Director of User Sciences and Experience Research at IBM Almaden Research Center. He also teaches advanced studies in artificial intelligence at Stanford.
Another is Ken Arnold, co-author with James Gosling of "The Java Programming Language", and a co-developer of the Jini specification.
Then again, another quote inside the book is from Rick Rockwell, the original groom from "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire" (now Darva Conger's ex.).
PARC and FOX in the same endorsement page...
That alone will stop some folks from getting it.
And if you don't like the style, it won't even be tolerable -- at best, an acquired taste, whereas a more traditional format is usually acceptable even if you don't LOVE it.
So a lot of folks (me especially) are wondering how many people out there will actually *want* to learn this way. This is a brand new concept, so we'll have to see. If you want to know how it's being received, check on Amazon from time to time, and search on Java, and sort on bestsellers, or check the O'Reilly bestseller list. The book has been out for only a few weeks; it will be up to learners/readers to decide.
I can tell you our proudest moment came when we got an email from a guy whose wife doesn't fully approve of him reading the book.
cheers,
Kathy Sierra, co-author Head First Java