y***y
发帖数: 295 | | t******e
发帖数: 185 | 2 没经验，我就看过thinking in java | r*********r
发帖数: 3195 | 3 java 没什么好书，绝大多数是傻瓜型的,还死贵。
think in java 不错，Herbert Schildt 的
java cookbook 和 art of java 也可以看看。 | j******o
发帖数: 82 | 4 core java series is good.
【在 r*********r 的大作中提到】
: java 没什么好书，绝大多数是傻瓜型的,还死贵。
: think in java 不错，Herbert Schildt 的
: java cookbook 和 art of java 也可以看看。
| g*****g
发帖数: 34805 | 5 2nd that. Java as a language is simple. But Java is far beyond
a language, it's a platform.
【在 j******o 的大作中提到】
: core java series is good.
| r*********r
发帖数: 3195 | 6 a language should not be mixed with its libraries.
when you learn/teach a language, pay attention only to its syntax, semantics
, core data structures, and some basic io stuff.
i see too many mediocre java books lost their way amid awt, regex,
multithreads, jdbc etc. in the end, they tend to do a poor job at teaching
the language itself.
and the java APIs evolve so quickly, it's basically not worth investing the
time to study, unless you have a job to get done at hand. | g*****g
发帖数: 34805 | 7 I disagree, a language is nothing without rich libraries.
Java is embraced by millions of developers due to its "write once,
run anywhere" feature, which includes its libs. C++ is pain in
the butt when it comes to handy lib on different platform, barring
the basic libs, people tend to write their own, which is against OOP.
While AWT is outdated, Swing, Multithreading, JDBC, IO, networking are
all essential for Java. Unlike C++, you can't teach Java without talking
about its JDK. While you don't
【在 r*********r 的大作中提到】
: a language should not be mixed with its libraries.
: when you learn/teach a language, pay attention only to its syntax, semantics
: , core data structures, and some basic io stuff.
: i see too many mediocre java books lost their way amid awt, regex,
: multithreads, jdbc etc. in the end, they tend to do a poor job at teaching
: the language itself.
: and the java APIs evolve so quickly, it's basically not worth investing the
: time to study, unless you have a job to get done at hand.
| m******t
发帖数: 2416 | 8
semantics
What you said might be true for many other languages, but certainly not for
Java. You can't do shit in Java - literally not even "Hello world" - if you
don't learn about the core packages.
That's because Java's syntax is really very simple - and IMHO that's the
beauty of Java.
(Besides, how do they ever make 1519 pages if they only covered the syntax?)
the
The core APIs haven't changed that much - they have been enriched over the
releases, but many things I learned in the 1.2 days sti
【在 r*********r 的大作中提到】
: a language should not be mixed with its libraries.
: when you learn/teach a language, pay attention only to its syntax, semantics
: , core data structures, and some basic io stuff.
: i see too many mediocre java books lost their way amid awt, regex,
: multithreads, jdbc etc. in the end, they tend to do a poor job at teaching
: the language itself.
: and the java APIs evolve so quickly, it's basically not worth investing the
: time to study, unless you have a job to get done at hand.
| r*********r
发帖数: 3195 | 9 java's syntax is quite consistent, but its semantics, object model, and its
runtime/vm are quite complicated. i've seen many stupid java programs, from
which it's obvious that the programmer didn't understand those things very
well.
as for the libraries, a java book should only talk about packages under java
.lang, java.io, and a bit about containers under java.util.
look at the "c programming language", they didn't try to discuss the whole
UNIX API, instead they left the job for richard stevens | g*****g
发帖数: 34805 | 10 That's because UNIX API is "UNIX" API, like you have the counter part of
"Windows" API. It's OS dependent. In Java, everything is platform neutral,
and all the JDK packages under java and javax are readily available for
any runtime.
So rather than learn how to write MFC or Motif, you learn how to write Swing
program. And it's essential part of Java.
While C/C++ are just a language, Java is a platform. And I don't see
anything wrong teaching all the standard Java libraries in a Java book.
its
fr
【在 r*********r 的大作中提到】
: java's syntax is quite consistent, but its semantics, object model, and its
: runtime/vm are quite complicated. i've seen many stupid java programs, from
: which it's obvious that the programmer didn't understand those things very
: well.
: as for the libraries, a java book should only talk about packages under java
: .lang, java.io, and a bit about containers under java.util.
: look at the "c programming language", they didn't try to discuss the whole
: UNIX API, instead they left the job for richard stevens
|
|
