6 ms·

Java has nothing to do with that. If you want to you can put everything in the default package (no nesting) or in a 1000 nested directory. Java does not stop

Java has nothing to do with that. If you want to you can put everything in the default package (no nesting) or in a 1000 nested directory. Java does not stop you from doing this: Minecraft-API |- src

rcgs 14y ago
So it's a choice between bad and worse?
- felipemnoa 14y ago
  How else can it be done? If you want namespaces you can use them, if not you don't.
  - morsch 14y ago
    Well, obviously, by using them in the language without requiring them on the filesystem? I think you should be able to cat together all the .java files in your project and it should still compile. I guess you could easily do it using a very simple preprocessor.
    - felipemnoa 14y ago
      If you do that you will no longer be able to tell the overall structure of your project at a single glance without using an IDE like Eclipse. Adding and removing packages becomes harder without the IDE. What are the upsides? You've increased the complexity for no good reason.
      - morsch 14y ago
        Easier rapid prototyping and exploratory programming. Edit all the classes of your small/exploratory project in a single file. If the project expands, it should be an automated refactoring to move classes to their own files. I do this all the time using static inner classes.
morsch 14y ago
The project setup in the repository also has two "superfluous" levels of hierarchy: |- main |- java At this early stage this seems like overengineering, and if at some point the project gets code e.g. javascript, it might be worth it to add ./js-src at the top-level first.
- felipemnoa 14y ago
  Which has nothing to do with Java. The developer chose that hierarchy. Correction: As per the message below I guess I should say that it has nothing to do with Java, the ecosystem, framework he is using is forcing him to use that hierarchy.
  - koko775 14y ago
    EDIT: This is meant to be educational, not a rant. I'm hoping people take it that way. Maven requires a standard directory layout. Maven chose that hierarchy, because: 1) Namespacing. With tens or hundreds of thousands of packages out there, there needs to be an unambiguous way to refer to them separately. 2) Multiple language support. Maven can do Java, Scala, Clojure, Groovy, and so on - in the same project, even. It can even do Javascript, which isn't a JVM language, in certain cases. For the JVM languages, if you want a multi-lamguage project, there has to be an easy way to interoperate (this is enabled by namespacing). 3) Separation of test code and program code. Don't ship tests with your binary package. 4) Separation of code from data. 5) Automation - of packaging, IDE support, etc. This has to do with all of the previous ones. You want to produce a JAR, but don't want to include the default log configuration. So you package the project up. It just happens. You want to edit the code in your IDE. So you add the project. All libraries are downloaded and on your classpath. Add a few lines to your config (as a per-system-user setting or per-project setting, take your pick). Java documentation and source code for those libraries is automatically downloaded. Eclipse hooks it up for you. Suddenly, this: src/main/java src/main/scala src/main/resources src/test/java src/test/scala src/test/resources ...makes a lot more sense. It's hardly overengineering, but even then, the engineer isn't the one engineering the build system; these are details Maven takes care of. [Aside: I am appalled and flabbergasted by the ignorance typically leveled at Java by people who don't understand it✝. It has real flaws, don't get me wrong, but making dependency resolution and installation ridiculously straightforward, multi-language builds dead simple, and unit testing a core feature - these are good things.] Take a look at ant and compare it to maven and you'll see which one makes your life easier✝✝. ✝ I have worn many hats, and have experience with Python, Ruby, PHP, C, Java, and a little bit of Scala in real world contexts, among others. So I'm not a noob who hasn't experienced elegance or conciseness or performance. Java is actually an amazing language that many people don't give it credit for. Though the syntax can be pretty ugly even when the code is conceptually solid. ✝✝ Losing a bit of nuance here - ant gives you configuration. maven gives you convention. Ant is good for very custom; maven is good for straightforward processes.

Java has nothing to do with that. If you want to you can put everything in the default package (no nesting) or in a 1000 nested directory. Java does not stop you from doing this: Minecraft-API |- src

rcgs 14y ago

So it's a choice between bad and worse?

felipemnoa 14y ago
How else can it be done? If you want namespaces you can use them, if not you don't.
- morsch 14y ago
  Well, obviously, by using them in the language without requiring them on the filesystem? I think you should be able to cat together all the .java files in your project and it should still compile. I guess you could easily do it using a very simple preprocessor.
  - felipemnoa 14y ago
    If you do that you will no longer be able to tell the overall structure of your project at a single glance without using an IDE like Eclipse. Adding and removing packages becomes harder without the IDE. What are the upsides? You've increased the complexity for no good reason.
    - morsch 14y ago
      Easier rapid prototyping and exploratory programming. Edit all the classes of your small/exploratory project in a single file. If the project expands, it should be an automated refactoring to move classes to their own files. I do this all the time using static inner classes.

morsch 14y ago

The project setup in the repository also has two "superfluous" levels of hierarchy: |- main |- java At this early stage this seems like overengineering, and if at some point the project gets code e.g. javascript, it might be worth it to add ./js-src at the top-level first.

felipemnoa 14y ago
Which has nothing to do with Java. The developer chose that hierarchy. Correction: As per the message below I guess I should say that it has nothing to do with Java, the ecosystem, framework he is using is forcing him to use that hierarchy.
- koko775 14y ago
  EDIT: This is meant to be educational, not a rant. I'm hoping people take it that way. Maven requires a standard directory layout. Maven chose that hierarchy, because: 1) Namespacing. With tens or hundreds of thousands of packages out there, there needs to be an unambiguous way to refer to them separately. 2) Multiple language support. Maven can do Java, Scala, Clojure, Groovy, and so on - in the same project, even. It can even do Javascript, which isn't a JVM language, in certain cases. For the JVM languages, if you want a multi-lamguage project, there has to be an easy way to interoperate (this is enabled by namespacing). 3) Separation of test code and program code. Don't ship tests with your binary package. 4) Separation of code from data. 5) Automation - of packaging, IDE support, etc. This has to do with all of the previous ones. You want to produce a JAR, but don't want to include the default log configuration. So you package the project up. It just happens. You want to edit the code in your IDE. So you add the project. All libraries are downloaded and on your classpath. Add a few lines to your config (as a per-system-user setting or per-project setting, take your pick). Java documentation and source code for those libraries is automatically downloaded. Eclipse hooks it up for you. Suddenly, this: src/main/java src/main/scala src/main/resources src/test/java src/test/scala src/test/resources ...makes a lot more sense. It's hardly overengineering, but even then, the engineer isn't the one engineering the build system; these are details Maven takes care of. [Aside: I am appalled and flabbergasted by the ignorance typically leveled at Java by people who don't understand it✝. It has real flaws, don't get me wrong, but making dependency resolution and installation ridiculously straightforward, multi-language builds dead simple, and unit testing a core feature - these are good things.] Take a look at ant and compare it to maven and you'll see which one makes your life easier✝✝. ✝ I have worn many hats, and have experience with Python, Ruby, PHP, C, Java, and a little bit of Scala in real world contexts, among others. So I'm not a noob who hasn't experienced elegance or conciseness or performance. Java is actually an amazing language that many people don't give it credit for. Though the syntax can be pretty ugly even when the code is conceptually solid. ✝✝ Losing a bit of nuance here - ant gives you configuration. maven gives you convention. Ant is good for very custom; maven is good for straightforward processes.