If I had to speculate, I'd say that it was because every author thinks they bring a fresh and clearer perspective on OOP that they have to share with their readers. Or it's filler to bulk up the book. Choose based on your level of cynicism.
I know how important exceptions are. If you read the review, I noted how refreshing it was that HFJ actually offered an entire chapter dedicated to it.
Rare and common, in the context, meant rare and common among Java books. That's all I meant.
Your review is okay but it's really superficial. The teaching style is not the focus of the book, teaching Java is. The authors go to extraordinary lengths to make the teaching as easygoing as possible.
You didn't even touch on their emphasis on test-driven development. This, in my mind, is the highlight of the book. They not only explain it well, but they show it in every example they produce. They also make the tests before they start development, which is a good practice that they do consistently.
They also devote an entire chapter to exception handling. Too many books I've read omit it entirely or deal with it in a very casual way. By focusing on it, they really make the reader realize the value in thinking through the possibilities of what could happen.
Finally, they devote an entire chapter to packaging up your Java code for release. Other Java books I've read brush this matter aside, assuming it to be a triviality that should be self-evident to everyone. It's not and doing a proper release is critical to any software application.
Re:Just mentioned the Club...
on
The Big Kerplop
·
· Score: 1
Aside from the one's you mentioned, there's also the Hardy Boys and Einstein Anderson. I remember both of those series quite fondly, though the book covers on SeymourSimon.com look much, much lamer than I recall.
That statement was supposed to be a reference from this Seinfeld episode. Okay, I'll grant that it's maybe a little too obscure.
I agree wholeheartedly that competition is good for everyone and that Netflix can only get better for it (or go under, thereby yielding to a better player).
I guess I should've went with my comparison of the Netflix spokeswoman to the Iraqi information minister when she said that "Wal-Mart and Blockbuster will end up in a battle for the No. 2 spot." Okay, maybe that one wasn't great either!
One thing I noticed that I haven't seen commented on anywhere is that the address bar history is better implemented.
Previously, it just had an alphabetized list of URLs that start with what you'd entered. Now it has the same list, but the highlighted one is the one you most recently visited--as near as I can figure.
I've been going over some CSS tests with Safari and IE5.5/Windows and Safari beats IE handily. The KHTML doc cited has got to be outdated and unreflective of Apple's enhancements.
I think Apple's release of the source back into KHTML will reveal some serious work.
The only speed bumps I get from my 500MHz TiBook are the second-degree burns from running CPU-intensive apps. These things are like Aqua-fied, titanium McDonald's coffees.
I can see the headline now: "Third-Degree Thigh Burn Rates Spike Among New Powerbook Users".
I think the real point here is an anachronistic understanding of competition (though your point about government creation of monopolies is important and valid).
In economic terms, satellite TV has a bunch of substitutes--any number of which are sufficient for the majority of people. You noted that there is always network TV: in most areas, there's also cable available. What's more, people can also get those really big satellite dishes and connect directly to satellites. Or they can take their TV viewing offline by watching pre-recorded tapes and DVDs. Satellite TV has a lot of competition already.
And, of course, people don't have to buy their service.
What's the difference between the Power4 and the PowerPC 970? As a Mac guy, I've been following all of the rumors and announcements with interest but I keep seeing the PPC970 referred to as a scaled-back version of the Power4.
Why wouldn't Apple go with the Power4 over the PPC970? And I already know that nothing official has been announced by Apple and that this is all probably going to be a lot of sturm und drang signifying nothing, but that's what keeps us Mac guys going I guess.
The philosophy keynotes have been real snoozefests. I can get that sort of stuff from the Macintosh web culture and Apple's own site.
What's curious to me is Apple's statement that "since IDG is no longer investing in New York, we now need to re-evaluate our participation in Macworld New York 2003." Could the animus be aimed at Boston? Could Apple be a part of that whole New York-Boston rivalry?
I think Apple wants desperately to marginalize the Expos and their keynotes. They're using IDG's action as an excuse to pull out.
I have heard from an Apple Store employee (surely not the best source, but corroborated by common sense) that Apple is none-too-fond of the pre-Expo sales slowdown and the heightened expectations that they rarely achieve. They've made some pre-emptive moves already by having product announcements at special media events and in arenas definitely not Macworld Expo.
I had completely awful vision (contacts were -15 diopters or something like that) and bad astigmatism. My vision is as good as it ever was with glasses or contacts and I don't regret it one bit. I sit at my computer for at least eight hours a day and have done that continuously for at least two years.
I would definitely recommend that you not go cheap on this, though. I've had some friends who went to the $499/eye places and they had a much harder recovery and some minor visual artifacts for awhile. On the other hand, I spent about $1,500 per eye and went to the most reputable group of surgeons in Arizona (Barnett Dulaney Perkins). I was back to work on Monday and have had no problems in the three years since.
If you want some technological assurance, find a surgeon who uses LADAR which is an eye-tracking guide for the LASIK surgeon. You move your eye and it compensates.
Slashdot Mirror
That's good advice. That's the thing I liked most about HFJ: the test-driven development emphasis. Why they didn't get into JUnit is beyond me.
Good point. I am neither a C or C++ developer and TIJ assumed a little too much background for me.
If I had to speculate, I'd say that it was because every author thinks they bring a fresh and clearer perspective on OOP that they have to share with their readers. Or it's filler to bulk up the book. Choose based on your level of cynicism.
I know how important exceptions are. If you read the review, I noted how refreshing it was that HFJ actually offered an entire chapter dedicated to it.
Rare and common, in the context, meant rare and common among Java books. That's all I meant.
If ever a story should lead to a Slashdotting, this would be the one.
Your review is okay but it's really superficial. The teaching style is not the focus of the book, teaching Java is. The authors go to extraordinary lengths to make the teaching as easygoing as possible.
You didn't even touch on their emphasis on test-driven development. This, in my mind, is the highlight of the book. They not only explain it well, but they show it in every example they produce. They also make the tests before they start development, which is a good practice that they do consistently.
They also devote an entire chapter to exception handling. Too many books I've read omit it entirely or deal with it in a very casual way. By focusing on it, they really make the reader realize the value in thinking through the possibilities of what could happen.
Finally, they devote an entire chapter to packaging up your Java code for release. Other Java books I've read brush this matter aside, assuming it to be a triviality that should be self-evident to everyone. It's not and doing a proper release is critical to any software application.
Aside from the one's you mentioned, there's also the Hardy Boys and Einstein Anderson. I remember both of those series quite fondly, though the book covers on SeymourSimon.com look much, much lamer than I recall.
Don't forget that they also get FAST, whose search technology is said to rival Google's.
In one fell swoop, they get the biggest PPC company and a viable competitor to Google. Doesn't sound like such a bad move to me.
There's got to be a reason why this hasn't happened:
a) the people who would use that service probably already subscribe to sites on the Net.
b) when the urge strikes you, you probably want immediate gratification.
c) you can almost guarantee an immediate turnover of the rentals (they get it in and probably send it out next day).
d) the cleaning of returned rentals is probably costly. (j/k...maybe)
That statement was supposed to be a reference from this Seinfeld episode. Okay, I'll grant that it's maybe a little too obscure.
I agree wholeheartedly that competition is good for everyone and that Netflix can only get better for it (or go under, thereby yielding to a better player).
I guess I should've went with my comparison of the Netflix spokeswoman to the Iraqi information minister when she said that "Wal-Mart and Blockbuster will end up in a battle for the No. 2 spot." Okay, maybe that one wasn't great either!
I don't know if Scott Adams got this from elsewhere on the Web, but I saw this same anecdote in his Joy of Work: Dilbert's Guide to Finding Happiness at the Expense of Your Co-Workers . Incidentally, I would highly recommend that book for the pranks and practical jokes it contains.
One thing I noticed that I haven't seen commented on anywhere is that the address bar history is better implemented.
Previously, it just had an alphabetized list of URLs that start with what you'd entered. Now it has the same list, but the highlighted one is the one you most recently visited--as near as I can figure.
Here's some good research about pagination versus scrolling:
5 1/paging_scrolling.htm
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/
There's tons more research on web usability that you should also check out at that site.
This reminds me of that Get a Life! episode except that these seem way more expensive than $19.99.
As noted by Bill Bumgartner, file size of the package has gone from 7.2MB to 6.9MB.
I haven't seen file size increase with upgrades. The Safari developers should be proud.
I've been going over some CSS tests with Safari and IE5.5/Windows and Safari beats IE handily. The KHTML doc cited has got to be outdated and unreflective of Apple's enhancements.
I think Apple's release of the source back into KHTML will reveal some serious work.
The only speed bumps I get from my 500MHz TiBook are the second-degree burns from running CPU-intensive apps. These things are like Aqua-fied, titanium McDonald's coffees.
I can see the headline now: "Third-Degree Thigh Burn Rates Spike Among New Powerbook Users".
I think the real point here is an anachronistic understanding of competition (though your point about government creation of monopolies is important and valid).
In economic terms, satellite TV has a bunch of substitutes--any number of which are sufficient for the majority of people. You noted that there is always network TV: in most areas, there's also cable available. What's more, people can also get those really big satellite dishes and connect directly to satellites. Or they can take their TV viewing offline by watching pre-recorded tapes and DVDs. Satellite TV has a lot of competition already.
And, of course, people don't have to buy their service.
What's the difference between the Power4 and the PowerPC 970? As a Mac guy, I've been following all of the rumors and announcements with interest but I keep seeing the PPC970 referred to as a scaled-back version of the Power4.
Why wouldn't Apple go with the Power4 over the PPC970? And I already know that nothing official has been announced by Apple and that this is all probably going to be a lot of sturm und drang signifying nothing, but that's what keeps us Mac guys going I guess.
My dad was a rollerblading butterfly, you insensitive clod!
Ooo, that's really going to hurt AOL. I bet these guys get arrested for littering or AOL refuses the package.
Or maybe AOL will rethink its number one marketing ploy (ubiquity) and go to something more subdued. Uh huh.
These researchers need to team up with MIT Media Lab's Erotic Computation Group.
The philosophy keynotes have been real snoozefests. I can get that sort of stuff from the Macintosh web culture and Apple's own site.
What's curious to me is Apple's statement that "since IDG is no longer investing in New York, we now need to re-evaluate our participation in Macworld New York 2003." Could the animus be aimed at Boston? Could Apple be a part of that whole New York-Boston rivalry?
Maybe New York is Jobs' kinda town?
I think Apple wants desperately to marginalize the Expos and their keynotes. They're using IDG's action as an excuse to pull out.
I have heard from an Apple Store employee (surely not the best source, but corroborated by common sense) that Apple is none-too-fond of the pre-Expo sales slowdown and the heightened expectations that they rarely achieve. They've made some pre-emptive moves already by having product announcements at special media events and in arenas definitely not Macworld Expo.
I had completely awful vision (contacts were -15 diopters or something like that) and bad astigmatism. My vision is as good as it ever was with glasses or contacts and I don't regret it one bit. I sit at my computer for at least eight hours a day and have done that continuously for at least two years.
I would definitely recommend that you not go cheap on this, though. I've had some friends who went to the $499/eye places and they had a much harder recovery and some minor visual artifacts for awhile. On the other hand, I spent about $1,500 per eye and went to the most reputable group of surgeons in Arizona (Barnett Dulaney Perkins). I was back to work on Monday and have had no problems in the three years since.
If you want some technological assurance, find a surgeon who uses LADAR which is an eye-tracking guide for the LASIK surgeon. You move your eye and it compensates.