|
is there anything for documentation, or program flow, or anything
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
tinselt0wn posted:if being able to manage your projects efficiently to save you time isnt worth $200 your job is a pos yes the only two options are a $200 poo poo program or you have a lovely job, ty for yr analysis
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
etcetera08 posted:yes the only two options are a $200 poo poo program or you have a lovely job, ty for yr analysis another option is that you work hard for your manager to make all the money and get all the attention and you resent your customers and anyone not in IT
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
yet another is to get out
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
of yospos i mean
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
CaptainMeatpants posted:what the hell are these bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
I bought all the omnifoci and it was worth it. Idk what omniplan is but it's probably pretty good
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
idk if you guys realize but i was trying to write a program, not synergize a forward-thinking brand outreach initiative
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
CaptainMeatpants posted:is there anything for documentation, or program flow, or anything visio
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
Yup buy the omnifoci. The best part is they only work on apple products so it gives you a good reason to upgrade if you're using lesser hardware
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
rotor posted:visio is visio good for personal/very small team use does it really handle documentation (for, say, an internal api) is there a version that isn't like a thousand dollars
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
CaptainMeatpants posted:is visio good for personal/very small team use yes, yes, lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Wheany posted:how to make an empty array of org.javatuples.Triplet: what the gently caress is a javatuples
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
there is literally no other way to store two associated pieces of data i need an object that has exactly two Objects internally
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
there's definitely been times where i wanted to pass around two associated objects, which is why languages with compact abstract datatype declarations own
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
CaptainMeatpants posted:is visio good for personal/very small team use lol you buyin' tools when you should just be writing better code
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
i also need objects that hold exactly three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten associated objects. these objets need to be distinct and named completely differently. thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:there is literally no other way to store two associated pieces of data Commons collections has a pair class that extends map.entry
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:i also need objects that hold exactly three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten associated objects. these objets need to be distinct and named completely differently. thanks. There's probably some poo poo commons library that includes this
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:Commons collections has a pair class that extends map.entry 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:java owns i was doin java today and i was like "man shaggar would be happy" then 5 minutes later i was like "i wanna do the snake"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
been learning ruby's “grammar”  "a -1; a=0; a -1" parses as "a(-1); a=0; a.+(-1)" and that "p ([1]).map(&:next)" and "p([1]).map(&:next)" parses as "p(([1]).map(&:next))" and "(p([1])).map(&:next)" and that p(1 if 1) is a syntax error but p((1 if 1)) isn't "while not nil.nil? {} do nil end" parses. "while not nil.nil? do end do nil end" doesn't. "while not nil.nil? &-> do end do nil end" parses. "until not nil.nil? &-> do end do nil end" doesn't 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
ain't nothin wrong with a pair class
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:there is literally no other way to store two associated pieces of data i used that because it's immutable, generic and takes care of all the lovely little details, hashCode() etc. it's not like it's hard to write public static class Pair { public int number; public String someString; } if you just want to associacte a number with a string
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:i also need objects that hold exactly three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten associated objects. these objets need to be distinct and named completely differently. thanks. http://projectlombok.org/features/Data.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
lombok looks awesome but the library i build/maintain at work doesn't use it and i've never really needed to do any personal project with java
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
Object tuple = new Object[] { iDontCare, aboutThisShit }; boom done commit it. or you could also copy out android.util.Pair, but then you'd have godawful code like this: Pair<Integer,Map<String,String>> tuple = new Pair<Integer,Map<String,String>>(anInt, aMap); but wait, java 7 fixes for (Entry<String,Pair<Integer, Map<String,String>>> ent: myTuplesMap.entrySet()) { ... }
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
roll your own idl and autogen all your tuple classes
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
use an ide, you heathen. prioblem solved
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
homercles posted:
yeah ok i'm almost glad my project builds in java 5
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
*farts quietly*
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
yeah that is rather cool
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
homercles posted:for (Entry<String,Pair<Integer, Map<String,String>>> ent: myTuplesMap.entrySet()) { ... } Is Java really still that primitive? code:
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:Is Java really still that primitive? why does crapple hate c++11
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
is there some use for tuples besides a quick and dirty way to return multiple objects from a function call because that's the only time I wished I had them in languages that don't support them I see features like iterators over tuples and I wonder why
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
Internaut! posted:is there some use for tuples besides a quick and dirty way to return multiple objects from a function call because that's the only time I wished I had them in languages that don't support them sometimes you want something that's not self-documenting like a class and implicitly defined so you have to read the source or have prose documentation to understand what it does hashtables/maps in java have really bad syntax so you can't just use those
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
tuples are convenient in python some things return pairs: for key,value in d.items(): .... or for index, item in enumerate(items): .... no big deal 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Internaut! posted:also trexeaterofcadrs does groovy 2.0 fix those problems you experienced, we have some jvm integration work coming up and I'd like to use it ya groovy 2.0 is a good step up but i think 3.0 will be the big improvement. 2.0 has indy support which is cool but there's still some silliness, for example code:code:that said, if you keep your programs simple and don't get all keyboard cowboy it'll work really well for you
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
tef posted:tuples are convenient in python for k, v in {butt: 'fart', toot: 'poot'} puts "#{k} => #{v}" end this is the part where dave thomas asks why nobody uses for … in and always uses #each and the whole room says "because you told us to" (june 30 2012, scottish ruby conference)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 15:44
|
|