Very honestly, I found that reading specs was more about understanding. Specs are complicated & rather difficult to understand. Moreover, would you like to look into a basket of mixed fruits everywhere when you could look at just a location of the basket. Tutorials help you with the latter & that is what novice people want.. Specs reading is for experts & interests.. I am in the second category as reading specs does boost your efficiency. Fabrizio Sir, you might like adding the last point of reading specs in your article (really interesting article on improving efficiency)
Regards, Jitesh Dundas On 8/6/10, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 8/6/10 11:32 , Kevin Wright wrote: >> First came bikes, they had very few moving parts, and so were easy >> to understand Then came the infernal combustion engine, with more >> moving parts and harder to understand, but definitely faster Then >> came the jet turbine, with just a single moving part, and rockets >> with none >> >> A car is more effective than a bike, but also more complex A plane >> is more effective than a car, but also less complex So simplicity >> and effectiveness are not correlated here. >> >> Why is it, then, that cars seen as normal and simple; while jets >> and rockets are perceived as modern and advanced? As many will >> point out, rockets pre-date cars by a long way, the Chinese have >> used them in fireworks for a *long* time. And the concepts >> underlying a turbine are far simpler than those behind a >> four-stroke engine. >> >> It's a good metaphor, with plenty of scope for extending. >> Consider that modern petrol engines use "injection"... >> >> > Right. In fact I question that a car is more effective than a bicycle, > or a plane more than a car. It depends on the use. But there's another > thing to add: one thing is the implementation complexity (needed for > people that make bikes/cars/languages) and the interface complexity > (needed or people that use bike/cars/languages). I find quite obvious > that driving a car is more complex than riding a bicycle (*). So, we > should also put the specs size in this perspective (in other words: I > suspect that 99% of the people who program in Java never read the > specs, but a much simpler tutorial). > > (*) In general. I drive cars, but I'm not able to ride a bicycle :-((( > > - -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people > [email protected] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEUEARECAAYFAkxb2hgACgkQeDweFqgUGxccfQCaA8FnQlvuVj5LIosLHmbZAUzM > O34Al0605IAMxeyXHEJ2X3VcT1ZfIdg= > =3DuM > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
