On 5/2/2012 11:01 AM, Lew wrote:
BGB wrote:
Arne Vajh?j wrote:
BGB wrote:
Arne Vajh?j wrote:
Java import and C include is not similar at any distance.
well, both are used to make use of a library,
Neither of them are used to make use of a library.
Java import allows you to reference classes without package name.
C include includes some source code from another file in the
compilation of current file.
this is what they do (or, how they work), but the issue is not what they
do, but what purpose they are used for.
both also have a word starting with the same letter and appear near
the
top of a source file, and are vaguely similar looking, also sort of
making them "similar".
Clearly you are joking here.
C include can be anywhere in the file.
but is most often at the top (except maybe when writing headers or
similar, where near the bottom is also common).
"Most often" is stylistic; the discussion here is how the constructs
are dissimilar, and Java 'import' must be at the top, just as Arne
said, and that is a difference. Your so-called counterargument is
irrelevant as it does not countervail the difference.
They do both start with "i", but so does ice cream.
yes, but ice-cream is not a keyword in either language.
And "include" is not a keyword in Java. The comparison is both
inaccurate and blazingly irrelevant. I know you are just jerking us
around, but it's causing people to answer you seriously, BGB, so
please stop.
I was not joking here...
this was mostly a matter of "how pedantic or technically accurate a
statement should be".
in this case, a technically inaccurate statement was used to make a
point, but the technical inaccuracy would be "excusable" under the basis
that many people wouldn't really care that they are different in these
regards, seeing them as "similar".
so, the assertion is that strict technical accuracy is not always
necessary, or for that matter, beneficial.
do people make a big fuss over "the sun rises and the sun sets" when
in-fact it is the Earth that is moving?