Possible bug in Calendar - Java

Daniel Pitts wrote:
> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>>> Daniel Pitts wrote:
>>>>> Bad design != bug
>>>>
>>>> I disagree, at least past a certain point.
>>>
>>> You may disagree.
>>>
>>> But that does not change the fact that if the code follow
>>> the specification then it is not a bug.
>>
>> If the code follows the specification, then there is no bug *in the
>> code*. There may still be a bug elsewhere. The code is not the whole
>> of a computer program; there is also the design and specification, and
>> those themselves may have flaws of their own, as is well known.
> A flaw isn't necessary a bug. I happen to agree that the Calendar and
> Date classes are highly flawed, but not buggy.

So our quibble is over the exact usages of a few words, not over
anything substantial.

Nigel Wade wrote:
> Arne,
>
> You're wasting your time arguing with this idiot.

No. I am not an idiot.

Though he is wasting his time. And mine. And yours and everyone else who
reads this group.

> Haven't you noticed the remarkable similarity to the nuisance...

[rest of off-topic insults, paranoid fantasies, and other nonsense trimmed]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer. Please at least try to remain on
topic. Not a single word of your post was about Java, Nigel.

"Lew" wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:28 am, Nigel Wade <n...@ion.le.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Arne,
>>
>> You're wasting your time arguing with this idiot.

No, I am not an idiot. However, Arne is indeed wasting everyone's time.

>> Haven't you noticed the remarkable similarity to the nuisance...
[rest of off-topic nonsense, including insults and paranoid fantasies,
trimmed]

Haven't you noticed that not a single word in Nigel's post was about
Java? Clearly it should have been posted elsewhere or nowhere.

> Arne is simply elucidating the point made by at least one of the gods

There are no gods.

> /op. cit./

This is an English-language newsgroup. Most of us don't know word one of
Latin.

> that 'getX()' factory methods absolutely do not implicitly or
> explicitly denote the return of a singleton

I never claimed that "getX()" methods do so. I claimed that, in the
absence of an obvious reason (based on required functionality) for
polymorphic behavior, "getInstance()" methods tend to return singletons,
threadlocal instances, or similarly.

That this keeps being misstated by those who seek to publicly attack me,
after this many corrections by me, can only be deliberate. Shame on you!

> There are many others who read this group besides "Harold" (not his
> real name)

You're right. "Harold" is not my real name. My real name is Harold,
without quotation marks.

Please stop misspelling my name. You have already been told several
times how to spell it correctly. That you continue to misspell it after
repeated requests to stop can only indicate that you are being
deliberately disrespectful, or perhaps willfully stupid, rather than
making an innocent mistake. Shame on you!

> who can benefit by having the truth, who otherwise might be misled by
> the misinformation promulgated to the contrary.

The only one misleading anyone here is you, both about what I actually
said and about what my name is. Shame on you!

Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>> Missing in that quote is the fact that you took out a line.
>>
>> A line that could not be interpreted without knowing Latin, and that
>> therefore is irrelevant to the matter of *how that paragraph would be
>> perceived by some guy reading it*.
>>
>>>> /op. cit./.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.ddj.com/java/208403883>
>>>
>>> It is obvious to me that Lew was referring to the person whose text
>>> was linked to
>>
>> Well, perhaps you know Latin and it actually was obvious TO YOU.
>> However, most people do not know what any given piece of Latin means,
>> especially when it's abbreviated instead of spelled out.
>
> I see a link.

I see a URL.

> A link is followed by the line "When gods speak, mortals
> should listen." Does that line refer to the text immediately preceding
> it

Why would it? I have no idea what is even at that URL. I never went
there. I have better things to do with my time than to follow links (by
manual cut and paste, at that) from off-topic Usenet flames from
arrogant twits.

Besides, the text gave every indication (at least to one that doesn't
know Latin) that the URL might be that of a Latin-language Web page. I
don't read Latin so going there would have been pointless.

> I don't know any Latin; I don't even know what `op. cit.' means (well, I
> just looked it up on Wikipedia). But that doesn't stop me from

leaping to conclusions. Yes, I noticed that about you. Also a tendency
to flip-flop between diametrically opposed opinions.

I think I prefer reading posts by people that are a little more ...
well, if not *reliable* then at least *consistent*.

Lew wrote:
> Exactly so. The fact that I really am a god of Java is just a
> coincidence.

"God" is a synonym for "Arrogant twit with too much spare time and a
nasty temper" from my readings on the subject.

Lars Enderin wrote:
> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
> [some refined variant of Twisted's usual rants]

No. (I don't even *know* this Twisted of yours.)

> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Have you read the documentation ?
>>>>>>>> Have you forgotten yet again to check your confrontational
>>>>>>>> attitude at the door?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering that the documentation clearly states that it returns
>>>>>>> a Calendar instance based on time, then it seems as a very relevant
>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly, the answer to my last question there is "yes" ...
>>>>>
>>>>> No I am trying to bring you from non-programmer to programmer-newbee
>>>>> by telling you to read the documentation instead of posting silly
>>>>> bug posts to usenet.
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>> Glad you agree with me.
>>
>> I do not! And that is a complete misquotation of what I wrote.
>>
>> This is what I actually wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you forgotten yet again to check your confrontational attitude
>>>>>>>> at the door?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering that the documentation clearly states that it returns
>>>>>>> a Calendar instance based on time, then it seems as a very relevant
>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly, the answer to my last question there is "yes" ...
>>>>>
>>>>> No
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> As you can CLEARLY see, I was "agreeing" that you had forgotten to check
>> your confrontational attitude at the door, not agreeing with your
>> vicious and uncalled-for personal attacks.
>>
>> If you EVER pull a dishonest stunt like that little bit of "creative
>> quoting" AGAIN I will have your HEAD. Have I made myself clear???
>>
>>>> I am an experienced programmer
>>>
>>> Sorry - nobody will believe that.
>>
>> Is that intended as a threat?
>>
>> If this is a declaration of your intent to smear my professional
>> reputation in public if I don't knuckle under to some as-yet-unstated
>> set of demands, well all I can say is "see you in court". It will be a
>> defamation lawsuit if you make good on that threat. And I won't knuckle
>> under, regardless.
>>
>> Regardless, you are in no position to assert what other people will or
>> will not believe. Other people will make up their own minds and I doubt
>> you are anywhere near as influential as you apparently think you are.
>>
>>> You don't read documentation.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>>> You don't understand object oriented principles.
>>
>> I do. Better than you do, apparently. You clearly don't get separation
>> of concerns, nor when to use names like "getInstance", versus
>> "newInstance" or a constructor. I do, and you got mad when you found out
>> that I know some things you don't. And threw a childish temper-tantrum
>> in public, hurling abuse and name-calling and generally behaving like a
>> six-year old that got told he couldn't have some candy because his
>> grades were too poor on his report card.
>>
>>>>> You do not let Calendar be GregorianCalendar and then ask all
>>>>> other Calendars to overwrite most methods.
>>>>
>>>> Who said anything about that?
>>>
>>> You did.
>>
>> No, I said that the object charged with the responsibility of being the
>> no-frills Date builder should be simple and straightforward, and need
>> not be polymorphic (and thus should not, given the simplicity requirement).
>>
>>>>> Read up on "is a" principle.
>>>>
>>>>> Stop being rude and condescending. Do not bark orders at me. Or I will
>>>> do the same to you. Got it?
>>>
>>> I got it
>>
>> Good.
>>
>>> you do not even know about the "is a" principle.
>>
>> A lie.
>>
>> It's just that it's not relevant to the issue of how to implement a
>> simple Date builder, anymore than it's relevant to the implementation of
>> StringBuilder.
>>
>>> You really should start reading.
>>
>> Since you evidently had nothing civil or Java-related to say here,
>> perhaps you should have kept your trap shut.
>>
>>>>> The other approach will result in a ton of if statements and switches
>>>>> in the methods.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. It will result in some pluses and minuses of the timezone
>>>> offset here and there, that's all.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> You have completely misunderstood
>>
>> No. YOU have completely misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup. Its
>> purpose is to enable intelligent adults discuss Java in a civil and
>> levelheaded fashion, not to enable little children whose parents don't
>> monitor their use of the Internet to flame and get into childish pissing
>> contests.
>>
>> Now pull the plug and tell your Mommy you want a sledgehammer for
>> Christmas so you can smash up your modem and eat it, and then, without
>> the distraction of coming here to post gratuitously insulting and
>> largely non-Java-related trash-talk at other people, focus on your
>> studies and improve your grades so you can ace fourth-grade Reading
>> Comprehension and, especially, not flunk English Lit *again*.
>>
>>> Calendars are much more different than just timezone and
>>> language for names.
>>
>> Calendars for use in ordinary business-programming situations are not.
>> Anything else belongs outside the core date/time classes. Same way
>> String does not have the functionality of Collator or MessageBundle
>> built-in, nor does StringBuilder.

Please stop intentionally misquoting me. It's beginning to be a bad
habit of yours.

> Each posting from "Harold Yarmouth" makes me more confident that
> [paranoid fantasies and other nonsense, but not a single word about
> Java]

Your behavior is incorrect.

If you have some problems with what I wrote (helpfully quoted properly
again, above), then you address what I wrote by quoting it and adding
your objections, caveats, or whatever as original text interspersed with
the quoted text.

If, on the other hand, your problems are in your own head (as seems to
be the case), or just plain have nothing to do with Java, then you don't
post to this newsgroup about it at all.

That you didn't bother to properly quote anything from my post or
address any specific points from my post is a strong sign that you
should not have written a followup to it, that indeed you had no reason to.

That you didn't bother to write a single word about Java in your post is
a strong sign that you should not have posted it to
comp.lang.java.programmer.

At this time, I'd guess that alt.therapy would be a better fit. Your
post seems to have been about your delusions of persecution by some
cabal of people you seem to think I'm one of, rather than about Java.

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>>>>> Of course it's not returning a singleton, since the javadoc of the
>>>>>>>> getInstance method explicitely says that "The Calendar returned is
>>>>>>>> based on the current time [...]".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which could, perversely, be referring to the time the
>>>>>> documentation was being written. Stranger things have happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will not get nominated twice !
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me?
>>>
>>> For "the most lame argument posted to cljp in 2008".
>>
>> Can trolls even be nominated for that?
>
> Ooops.
>
> No.
>
> Rule number 5 explicit prohibits giving the award to a troll.
>
> Sorry about that.

Are we here to discuss Java or medieval Germanic fairy-tale monsters
that don't really exist?

Harold Yarmouth wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> Harold Yarmouth wrote:
>>> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>>> Missing in that quote is the fact that you took out a line.
>>>
>>> A line that could not be interpreted without knowing Latin, and that
>>> therefore is irrelevant to the matter of *how that paragraph would be
>>> perceived by some guy reading it*.
>>>
>>>>> /op. cit./.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.ddj.com/java/208403883>
>>>>
>>>> It is obvious to me that Lew was referring to the person whose text
>>>> was linked to
>>>
>>> Well, perhaps you know Latin and it actually was obvious TO YOU.
>>> However, most people do not know what any given piece of Latin means,
>>> especially when it's abbreviated instead of spelled out.
>>
>> I see a link.
>
> I see a URL.
>
>> A link is followed by the line "When gods speak, mortals should
>> listen." Does that line refer to the text immediately preceding it
>
> Why would it? I have no idea what is even at that URL. I never went
> there. I have better things to do with my time than to follow links (by
> manual cut and paste, at that) from off-topic Usenet flames from
> arrogant twits.
>
> Besides, the text gave every indication (at least to one that doesn't
> know Latin) that the URL might be that of a Latin-language Web page. I
> don't read Latin so going there would have been pointless.
>
I use Thunderbird, like you do. I just clicked on that link, which
obviously was relevant to understand the following sentence about gods,
even if you were not educated enough to recognize [op. cit.] as a
reference to material mentioned elsewhere. Your refusal to look up
background material is symptomatic and strengthens my conviction that
you are indeed Twisted.
From http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...o-op-cit.html:

opero citato (op cit)

Definition

Reference term used usually in a footnote to refer to the title of a
work cited in a previous footnote. Latin for, in the work cited.

I think Lew did not use it correctly, but no matter. Your response to
Lew's message was uncalled for and just showed your ignorance and
unwillingness to learn.

Lars Enderin wrote:
> opero citato (op cit)
>
> Definition
>
> Reference term used usually in a footnote to refer to the title of a
> work cited in a previous footnote. Latin for, in the work cited.
>
> I think Lew did not use it correctly, but no matter. Your response to
> Lew's message was uncalled for and just showed your ignorance and
> unwillingness to learn.

I had cited the work before.

--
Lew