I'm under no delusion here that the size of the specification document proves anything.
However... If one is to OBJECTIVELY decide which of two programming languages is inherently more complicated, then something must be measured. Going on a sense of "well, X *feels* more complicated to me" may well have personal value, but it carries very little authority when attempting to persuade others of your viewpoint. Measuring spec size is a very flawed methodology here (it's not the size that counts...), but at least it IS a methodology, and it involves something that can be impartially measured. And, as a methodology, it can be improved upon. As previously stated, I believe that measuring the size of some formal grammar would be far more revealing. And accurate :) On 6 August 2010 11:38, jitesh dundas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
