Re: (OT) In search of a definition

On Mar 5, 10:19 am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rip...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:33 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rip...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:14 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Clark F Morris wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:44:29 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

William M. Klein wrote:
As someone who "grew up" in an IBM mainframe environment and now
primarily works under Windows XP, I am in search of a "good
definition" (that will be understandable to Windows people) of
the UNIX/Linux-type environment concept of a "package" as in

Download the libgmp package ...

I suggest looking in one of the Linux book for a definition of
package. Since much of Linux, especially the kernel and things
related to the kernel is in C NOT C++, the following from probably
would be misleading to a Linux installer/maintainer.

Gee Clark, guess I just wasted my time...:-)

Yes.

It's OK, I won't do it again.

It certainly was not my intention to mislead anybody.

I programmed with C many years ago, BEFORE C++, and the concept of
a package was NOT part of the language.

(Libraries certainly were.)

The concept of a package is not related to _any_ language.

Oh, here we go with another exposition on things that are generally
known. Grandmothers sucking eggs again.

While they may be 'generally' known, your: "the concept of a package
was NOT part of the language" indicated that what I related was not
known to you.

You seem sometimes completely incapable of reading what was written
without looking for something to formulate a hostile response from.

Yes, Richard, I know (as I'm sure most people here do too) that
"package" has many meanings.

Then you completely missed the point of my message which was that
'package' has been used to mean the same thing (a bundle of related
programs, procedures, types and variables) for several decades. Its
use in Java is the same as its use in C or other languages.

That is not the ONLY meaning and, if its use in Java is the same as in "C or
other languages" (which it isn't)

As it happens, the use of the term 'package' is the same in Java as in
other contexts.
While in Java it is 'a collection of classes', that is merely the
result of a limitation of Java, not a limitation on their use of
'package'.
In fact Java packages could contain anything, in particular they do
contain .properties (which are not classes).

then my using Java as an example was
probably not a bad idea.

It was your limiting the term's use to only be what you had
encountered that was bad.


It may well be that Java uses a Jar file where others may use a tar or
a pkg. In fact a Jar is just like a zipped tar.

Your: "the term is primarily related to Object Oriented Programming"
is complete nonsense.

In Java the Package is a collection of Classes. It has a specific meaning.
As Classes relate to OOP my statement is not the nonsense you claim.

No. Wrong. A package may also contain resources and .properties. In
fact it could contain anything but the limitation is not of 'package'
but of Java.
For code, Classes is all its got. If Java could produce or use
procedures and functions then they too could be in a package.

He was asking about Linux/Unix packages such

as .rpm, .deb or .pkg.

Yes he was. And you have particular expertise with that but never responded.

Having actually read and understood the question I saw that he
qualified the required answer: "(that will be understandable to
Windows people)".
My meager skills are obviously not up to that task.

I don't have expertise in that area so I used something I do know something
about to help explain a concept.

I was attempting to explain the concept of a package, as it is used in
Java, by way of an example. As you stated above that the use in Java is the
same as in C (actually, it is the same as C++) then you should have no
reason to be so incensed about this.

I note that you never responded with all these pearls of wisdom to the
original request. Had you done so we might not be having this conversation.

These, just like Java packages and any other, are zipped collections
of code and data appropriate to a particular topic.

Java packages are NOT "zipped collections of code and data appropriate to a
particular topic" so extrapolating that wrong concept to "just like any
other" is way off the beam. If you are going to be pedantic about things, at
least get them right. There is a major difference between a Package and a
Jar in Java.

Packages are usually in jars (Java ARchives) just as in Linux
pacakages are usually in .rpm or .deb or such.
In fact the packages that you mentioned such as awt are issued in
jars.

I used the Java one purely as a means to explain a
concept. My motives were pure and it was intended to be helpful., in
specific response to a request for help.

Except that it was a diatribe that entirely missed the question and
frequently, it seemed, was intended to demean or insult.

You have your posts mixed up. The original post was not a diatrible and even
the response to Clark was not intended to deman or insult. Perhaps you see
offence where none was intended?

It was accidental then.

Why would that elicit such a vicious and personally offensive
response?

Granted I did call you an 'arrogant prat' for your condescending
comment to Clark,

Would it not have been better to let Clark do that as he was the "injured
party"?

No, what you expressed was your unsolicited opinion. It was intended to be
offensive and it was unecessary. In other words, it was mean.

Obviously, there is a meanness in you that needs expression occasionally.

It happens
that you never met the term before using Java and thus think that it
is related to that language.

No, I had been dealing with packages of one kind or another many
years before that. The Java usage was the first time I had come
across it in an OO environment.

I quote: "I first encountered this in Java". And you quote it out of
context. As the question and
packages in general are not specifically related to OO, as you had
claimed, then I find this at attempted excuse.

As they are indeed related to OO in the context where I used them, you are
simply wrong.

That may be so in your mind, but that is a limitation of yours, not of
the use of the term.

A package is just a collection of code, types and data. It happens
that in Java, Classes is all it can produce for code.
That Java packages can also contain such things as .properties seems
to be unknown to you.

Basically Java used the keyword 'package'
where C used #import (and it does mean something somewhat more,
granted), but 'package' is used by C. For example in my UniPlus SVR3
manual (1983) stdio is referred to as "stdio - standard buffered
input/ output package". Others are similarly labeled.

Well the C manuals I used DIDN'T do that and I notice the manual you
quote uses the term without definition, in a loosely acceptable way.

So you have read right through the SVR3 and Edition 7 manuals to
determine that there is no definition for 'package'.

I don't need to. I am totally confident that , had there been one, you would
have quoted it. You didn't.

There may have been no need to include a definition for a widely used
and understood term.


I then went back to my set of Unix edition 7 and found exactly the
same headings.

You really set yourself some fascinating projects...

Hardly a 'project', they are just on the bookshelf.

Linus Torvalds is not favorably impressed with C++.

Gosh, I guess OO and Classes must be rubbish then. There goes all
the Java applications in the World, the Windows OS, all the C++ in
existence, all the Ruby, Python, C#, .NET... guess that leaves us
with...Unix and mainframe COBOL.

I should point out that the Windows OS is also written in C, and not C+
+.


One of the reasons that Vista was late is alleged to be that MS were
developing the replacement of XP to run on top of the .NET CLR. After
3 years it was found to be slow and unmanageable and was likely to
never work so they put Vista together in 18 months by taking 2003
kernel and adding Aero and some other stuff.

And it is alleged there may be life on Mars.

The implication of that is that C# is not viable to write an OS in.

As no one has tried that may well be the case. Is there a point to this.

It may well be that you don't know of any one trying, but here you
claim absolute knowledge that no one has.

http://www.hanselman.com/blog/RescuingTheTinyOSInC.aspx
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Singularity-A-research-OS-written-in-C/
http://channel8.msdn.com/Posts/Cosmos-the-C-OS-that-you-can-play-with/


But the point is that C#, C++, Java, or any other OO language may well
not be viable to use to write a useful OS, so it is irrelevant whether
Linus had access to C++ or not.


Essential or not, he didn't use it, and there is much more to OO
approaches than structs and pointers. The whole point of my post was
about concepts but it would require imagination to see that.

Was that intended to be insulting ? Or was it just an accidental
artifact of your normal tone ?

Richard, if I intended to insult you (or anyone else), believe me you would
know about it.

Unlike some people I don't see personal attack as being productive.

Then I accept that the implied insult (that I lack imagination), and
the arrogant remark to Clark, are merely the result of your normal
condescending and paternal attitude.



However as you ARE fluent in these languages and as you usually have
something worthwhile to contribute here, I'm all ears...

Then I find your post simply agrees with me,

Which is interesting because it doesn't agree at all.

I think I showed that it did.

Then you weren't reading closely enough, again.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (OT) In search of a definition
    ... definition" (that will be understandable to Windows people) of the ... Download the libgmp package ... ... I first encountered this in Java, where Rogers Cadenhead defines it as "a ... Function: Selection of underpants ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: (OT) In search of a definition
    ... a package was NOT part of the language. ... without looking for something to formulate a hostile response from. ... use in Java is the same as its use in C or other languages. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: (OT) In search of a definition
    ... definition" (that will be understandable to Windows people) of the ... Download the libgmp package ... ... Java is built almost entirely around "packages" which contain all the ... Function: Selection of underpants ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • building java rpm
    ... I am trying to build a java rpm based on the nosrc.rpm from jpackage.org ... chmod -R u+w bin CHANGES COPYRIGHT javaws lib LICENSE man plugin ... This package contains source files for %. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Quirk with generics
    ... One place this has happened was when I said a Java class cannot have two methods with the same signature and different return types, Joshua Somebody accused me of being wrong, and I quoted chapter and verse from the JLS proving that Joshua was the wrong one. ... #* Creating four new source files within the package. ... #* Deleting the project, its package, and the four source files. ... #my IDE potentially disturbing the way I'd had it (current ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
Quantcast