Related
I learnt swing basics and event handling basics from head first java...
Then i read a few tutorials on swing app development using netbeans...
and i loved it as i don't have to care about layouts and stuff...
But i read in one of the forums, that i should learn swings properly rather than using netbeans directly...
This confused me a bit....
Please suggest the best way to master development of swing apps....
thanks in advance
Well, I see I'm going to run counter to the majority here ;-)
Hand coding GUIs is a pain in the ass. Anything that makes that task easier is a good thing in my book. When you're just starting, having a generated GUI lets you get up and running faster.
GUI builders handle the really repetitive work and prevent you from doing the most common dumb things. The downside is that same approach will also prevent you from doing the really clever things. Eventually, you will encounter something that you cannot do through the GUI builder and you will need to poke into the code. So, you can't treat code generators like black boxes where you don't need to know what magic happens inside. At minimum, you need white boxes. Let the GUI builder do its magic, but understand that magic and its limitations.
Practice by generating a very simple GUI. Walk through the code and understand what it does. Make a change through the builder and see how the generated code changes. Try changing the code yourself to confirm you understanding is correct. *
If you don't understand something, hit the JavaDocs, the Swing Trail, or browse through the Java2S Swing Tutorials.
If you're still stuck try the kind folks at Java Ranch, or here on StackOverflow.
* Netbeans puts the generated code in guarded blocks and will not let you edit them directly. However, you can open the file in another editor to test a change. Also, you can do quite a lot to influence the code generation using the code tab in the properties window.
It depends on what you see as your goal.
There is no "perfect" approach to get comfortable using Java and swing, it always depends on what you want the outcome to be like.
Most enterprises depend on stability and speed, programmers need to write code fast and stable. If you write complex interfaces by hand it gets ugly when it comes to speed and precision at the same time. You can never write better code in terms of "it is working" then the netbeans gui builder can. Also, no one will probably have a look at your code once the application is up and running.
If you want to get to know swing only for the purpose of knowing it with no deeper intention what so ever, I'd recommend learning it by heart without netbeans as you'll probably familiarize yourself with most of it's functionality quicker then the other way around.
On one hand, if I want to learn something, I want to learn it from scratch, so I would probably go with writing swing-code myself and in the end using netbeans to generate it when I am fully able to comprehend what is generated.
On the other hand, if I need to write applications quick and am not paid to go into any details, I'd simply use netbeans.
I think you have answered yourself... you want to master development of swing apps...
everything that you do by autogenerating without knowing why or how is not mastering in my opinion ;)
If you want to be master, then you should at least know how to do it with your bare hands. Moreover, it will also help you if you will use other gui toolkits (main principles of gui toolkits are more or less the same, imho).
I'm using codeigniter for a little time and I find it really good, but sometimes it's difficult to find pre-cooked examples on the web that will guide me on what I want to do...so my question is which web framework(independent of language) will offer more examples, better tutorials and more resources in general?thanks in advance
Have a look at this wikipedia comparison of frameworks to see what they support out of the box (resources).
As to user base / documentation / useful examples: it depends on code that you can easily read as well. Have a look at:
http://static.raibledesigns.com/repository/presentations/WebFrameworksOfTheFuture-FlexGWTRailsAndGrails.pdf and https://equinox.dev.java.net/framework-comparison/WebFrameworks.pdf also compare frameworks.
I personally use the MS family, and I am satisfied.
I would strongly recommend CakePHP , it has alot of examples and really nice documentation.
It has a very nice way in handling models relationships
I'd recommend you have a look at the following, categorized in no particular order, with their language of implementation and support in brackets. They all present rather clean and novative aspects, but I don't think there's any real silver bullets. Just lots of very nice bullets depending on what you aim for.
The Laureates are...
Lift (Scala, Java)
Play (Scala, Java)
SeaSide (Smalltalk)
Ruby on Rails (Ruby)
Grails (Groovy, Java)
Yii (PHP)
Wicket (Java)
Others
There are other ones, but these were the ones that struck me a blow the first time I saw and experimented with them, and which have - in my opinion - brought some innovation to the scene in general or to their platform in particular.
Note that this isn't to say that some other frameworks may have been equally significant, but I merely list relatively recent and modern ones, and most importantly ones that I will still consider to write a modern web-app (in the general case).
Feel free to look around for more (and maybe add them in comments or edit this answer).
A few notes...
Play is indeed fun to poke around. Yii is the only PHP framework I'd touch with a very long pole (maybe CodeIgniter as well, granted, but I find Yii cooler and less of a hurdle to use and to work through). Rails/Grails are obviously on par. Wicket is something you'd want to consider if you are in a Java shop that's relatively restrictive and doesn't want anything ultra-exotic, but still enough on the edge.
But mostly, I'd recommend you have a look at Lift and Seaside, if you want to see something truly amazingly well thoughout and for the highest feature-per-LOC ratio. (Oh, and it's inspired partly by Seaside and Wicket, and designed by someone who had to work with a lot of (g)rails web-apps, so that sums it up. Plus Scala is an amazing language, granted you can use it and its underlying platform...)
This is an old question, but what the hell, Just came across it...
This Question about how do i learn from basic As3 to advanced as3 , as i want to become professional in as3.And work as freelancer.
can anybody guide me how to reach to the peak of Action-Script-3.
This question seems to be really funny to many but this is the most basic question in my mind
1) which way to go.
2) what steps i should follow.
3) how should i do my first project professionally.
4) how do i become excellent in as3
I believe actionscript 3.0 and Flash in general allows you work on a wide variety of projects:
from interactive rich media web interfaces, to interactive video, animation, games, desktop applications, rich internet applications, physical installations, creative and abstract pieces, etc.
It's up to you what you want to do, but I'm guessing if you start with something that motivates you, something that you enjoy working on and learning, it's a sure way forward
and it will make the boring bits more fun, and that's what it should be about: FUN!
It doesn't matter if it's actionscript or something else you want to learn, enjoy learning/challenging yourself and you'll get there faster than you think.
Answer 1.):
With regards to actionscript, based on what you want to do with it, there are a couple of good starts. Let's say you're interested in just the code, not planning to use the Flash IDE much or at all, and your aim to develop great applications. as #David Morrow said, Colin Moock's Essential Actionscript 3.0 is great. Also his guide From the Ground Up is a compressed version of the book.
An easier lecture, but packed with hands-on tips to getting things done in actionscript 3.0 is Rich Shupe's Learning Actionscript 3.0, also from O'Reilly. This might help you get up to speed with project you might have in mind.
Answer 2.) and 3.):
In short you have at least two routes:
easy/practical start where you learn
by doing small mini projects, but
keep in mind there are gaps to fill
in order to move on to complex
projects
a 'harder'/more theory based start,
that will cover advanced topics, so
you will ready to take most projects
out there, simple or complex.
Answer 4.):
It also important to keep in mind that there is no substitute for experience! Learn how ever it feels comfortable, but plan time for practicing/writing a lot of code/failing/fixing/repeating. Don't worry about getting things wrong! I don't know any programmer that can write a complex project perfectly from start to finish. Basically all projects out there are the result of this loops of failing/fixing/learning/ if you want to put it this way.
Never be afraid of getting things wrong ! You learn more this way, than getting things right, but not fully understanding why, also, you can discover something new. You can't run
into happy accidents if you don't have accidents at all.
As you progress you will like some things more than others. It is important to try everything when you learn. Knowing what you don't like is just as important as knowing what you like. Don't take everything for granted and form your opinions while learning.
You mentioned peaks. It's great to aim high. As I mentioned earlier, actionscript can be used for so many things, that it's hard to be the best in all areas. Andre Michelle and Joa Ebert for example are very talented developers and have a lot of experience with sound. Chris Georgenes on the other hand is a very talented animator. I wouldn't expect roles to swap anytime soon. If it helps, choose people that are actionscript virtuosos, get inspired by their works, there are plenty of them out there.
HTH,
George
understand OOP classes and packages.
Inheritance and polymorphism
keep all content in external xml files
dont ever put any code in your fla
start building a library of reusable classes for common tasks ( a util library )
start working with the Essential Actionscript 3.0 and you are on your way...
read and understand this entire book and you will be rolling
The simplest, yet probably most important answer is: Use it.
The only way you'll become advanced in AS3 (or any language) is to just start using it. Do some experiments, maybe create some small tools for yourself, or find an open source app and start contributing to it.
Books will help, but they're no substitute for actual experience using the language.
As they say, you need to learn to crawl before you can walk.
You need a solid understanding of programming. See David Morrow's answer for things you should know. Also add to the list a knowledge of datastructures.
Start programming. As George Profenza said, start with a simple project first and something that you will enjoy doing. If you undertake something too big you may end up disillusioned. The best thing about working on little things often is that you will encounter certain problems, and you will learn through experience on how to tackle them.
Once you have the basic hang of things start looking at other people's source code. Visit blogs of various well known flash developers and go through their code. Learn from the best. My blogrole is a list of such people.
After a while, maybe a year or so you will be a decent AS3 programmer. Remember AS3 is just a tool. What seperates the men from the boys is being able to solve problems. Start tackling more complex problems, for example, develop a voxel engine or something along those lines. The best programmers tend to experiment with problems in the field of computer science. In doing so, they become knowledgable on various things like 3D rendering, Audio etc and develop unique skills placing them on the cutting edge.
Well I'm a visual programmer, i only learn as a means to an end - I want to make things.
If you are as i am - then here's what I recommend to go from basic AS3 to advanced AS3.
Make a game. OR, and this might be an even better route.
Clone a game that you like - e.g. tetris, bomberman, pacman
I know it a single statement answer.... not fancy, but - you will HAVE to learn so much in the process of creating it.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've noticed many questions on here from new programmers that can be solved using libraries. When a library is suggested, often times they respond "I don't want to use X library" Is it the learning curve? or ? Just curious!
A lot of new programmers are still working at a very low level of abstraction, learning the trade. That's something everyone has to go through. It takes a while to "move up the stack" so to speak.
Once programmers realise that they spend most of the time solving the same problems as someone else already did, and the goal is to realise "business value", then they can really appreciate the value a good library brings.
When you're still learning the ins and outs of a new language, also having to learn how to use a 3rd party library can look like too much work. Also, libraries tend to be badly documented - or at least have documentation that seems totally opaque to a new(er) programmer.
So, faced with trying to solve problem X, saying "use a library" can sound a lot like "solve problem Y THEN problem x".
(Also, their professors told them not to. I managed to get all the way though my undergrad in C++ without learning the STL existed. Boy, did THAT cook my noodle.)
Some people, when confronted with a
problem, think “I know, I'll use a
library.” Now they have two
problems.
Seriously - this is a reasonable way for a newbie, already overwhelmed by new language, programming environment, paradigms, keystrokes, etc. to react to the suggestion to use a library. If you've got a solution, but it's not working, there are many potential sources of error; sorting through them is a challenge. Adding to them can seem irrational.
"Use a library" means find the library, download it, install it in your project, and call the necessary function. Not hard, if you're used to it (and there aren't corporate policies against it, and you have reason to trust the vendor, and the library itself has minimal dependencies, etc.). But if it's all new to you, when you ask a programming question and get back a system configuration answer, it can seem unhelpful (even if it is not, in fact).
Almost always it's because their professor has told them that they can't.
Sometimes it's just because they want to learn it themselves, but I'd say that's rare.
It's the learning curve.
Using libraries is probably one of the worst things a learning programmer can do. Instead of learning how to code, they're learning how to use specific APIs that other people implemented. I'm not saying that every programmer has to understand every single thing that they use, but programmers who know the ins and outs of a computer (digital logic, assembling op-codes, etc) usually have an edge over people who've started with something like Java Swing and are just throwing together libraries.
In production, this is a different matter of course. But I think the best course of education is to 'make everything' once, at least. Writing my own web application framework from the ground up really improved my programming skills and abstract abilities. Doesn't mean I'll use that framework if someone hires me to build them an application, but I know the strengths, weaknesses, and reasons behind the things that the 'giant' frameworks use, and it can help me choose a particular framework for a particular situation.
I remember shying away from several libraries simply because I wanted to see if I could create my own algorithm. I didn't want to just give up and let someone do the work for me but rather I wanted to learn from my mistakes. Once I had come up with a solution I was happy with, I looked into the libraries.
So for me it was simply wanting to see if I could do it.
I always have this urge to do it myself, but sometimes I can see my own limitations.
Just recently downloaded a library to create PDF documents, but thats pretty much the only time I can remember.
At least for me, (trying to) do things myself, is my way of learning.
My impression is that many newbie programmers wouldn't consider it their own work if they were to use someone elses libraries.
I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. Using libraries is great; it saves time, effort, bugs, etc. However, you learn very little in the process, and for new programmers, learning is the goal. To answer the question, I think that they tend to shy way from libraries simply because they are not used to using them and perhaps they don't know that they exist.
For many poorly documented libraries that are either implemented loosely or in languages that don't allow you to control containment and visibility very well, it can be quite difficult to guess just how the library is supposed to be used.
After you've used it for a while, you've gotten used to the quirks or read other source code that taught you the right way; but until then it can be pretty irritating to use a poorly put-together/designed library. (or even a well designed one that isn't terribly well documented).
If you don't have the source code to the library, that's another problem--you have no control over the ability to keep your program working. This is much more rare these days, but still happens in the case of a purchased library.
Most of the points covered off (for me the main one is the learning curve) but one other I think plays a part:
Because learning about a library is less exciting than coding the same functionality yourself.
More libraries = less billable hours.
I think there's a lot of time that needs to be invested in understanding the library's purpose - yes, a learning curve, but it's more that newbie programmers probably don't know what they need until they have a lot more experience.
Because it's fun.
Because part of maturing as a developer is learning to quickly identify problems which can be solved by a library or existing solution and which need personal attention.
When you're trying to learn how to do things, anytime something is accomplished "magically" by calling AwesomeClass.doAwesomeStuff(), you end up giving away a portion of control. When you are "new" and don't know what you're giving away or why it can be unsettling. This was my primary knock against Rails when I was first learning it. So many things just "worked" and I didn't know why without digging through lots of Rails source (which I generally didn't have time to do).
At least, that's my take on it.
The same reason that more experienced developers do -
Because it can often be as difficult to learn how to use a library as to write the part of it you need yourself. And at least then you can understand how it works when it doesn't do what you expect.
An experienced developer just has experience at understanding how to use libraries so more likely to consider it. An inexperienced developer it's one more thing to learn...
I'm a programmer, not a psychologist! :)
It was a long, long time ago for me, but it was because I wanted to learn and experience. I didn't want to use something I did not understand, so if I didn't think I understood the library and could program it myself, I tried not to use it. There might have been a bit of fear too; programming gives you a feeling of control, and using a library is like giving away this control.
Answer from a noob -
"I am not sure how to use the libraries or even how to access them or how it works"
Libraries often come with the overhead of learning some API and it's paradigm. It can get complex fairly quickly, and I could easily understand that beginners would prefer something a bit more in their comfort zone. From my experience, I found most libraries & frameworks seem to do a great job abstracting some tedious routine, but when I need to either extend this functionality, or use it in a way that's not intended, it can be a handful.
I think it's one of those things where "practice makes perfect".
Well, the newbie's purpose might be more solving the problem than implementing a solution. Perhaps what they really want to do is figure out how to solve the problem. I mean, if they're still heavily in the learning phase, it's quite possible they don't want easy answers handed to them.
I think the professors want them to stick to the basics. When I graduated from under-grad school, I knew C++, Java and some other languages but had no clue about libraries and frameworks being used in companies. It was like do you know java..yes..can you write a servlet..no.
For speed demons they rarely use 3rd party libraries and new programmers are usually looking to squeeze every once of speed of of their code. I think if they don't have control over their code they can't get the performance that they are looking for. At least thats why i avoided libraries when I first started to program.
I remember programing my first DAL and avoided all the other free libraries out on the web because I wanted my code to perform at top speed. Later, I discovered that usually its not the code thats the bttleneck its actually the database.
Some open source libraries are buggy or not as efficient as others.
In my eyes another factor is that additional libraries add complexity. Programs tend to get harder to understand, harder to maintain and buggier when getting more complex. I think what makes especially new programmers shy away from libraries is that adding library code increases complexity more than adding your own code - simply because understanding how the library works is still out of their grasp. So it seems to be a problem of both skill and psychology.
I think more fundamental issues can be recognized as a deterrant to using existing libraries.
Part of this as "newbie programmers" is a lack of exposure to libraries. If you don't know they exist, how do you know to use them?
Number Of Options Available. Let's say I'm really interested in learning more about MVC, but if I have to choose between cakephp and smarty and zend and ... well you can quickly see the gears work to discover a way to achieve the goal without investing the time experimenting. Take a look at Freshmeat or SourceForge to get a better understanding at the daunting selection of libraries available.
Questionable support combined with sketchy/outdated documentation for the libraries. Do I want to use this tool that may no longer work or may be abandoned in the future? It is likely that a project will evolve, and so it will for the project of a library too. Will its usefulness last the lifetime of my project or will I be required to re-do this work again?
Using a library requires you to understand the relatively complex design of the library, something that new programmers might not have mastered because all they've ever written is simple/procedural/single-purpose code. For example, to an experienced programmer standard design patterns like template method, observer and command seem pretty obvious, but to a newbie it all just seems like magic and/or unnecessary complexity. For me the turning point was when I got good enough to grok design patterns and write some basic reusable code.
It's been a long time now, but when I came out of college, I knew nothing of libraries. This was in the days of mainframes and mini-computers. Our college had a VAX and the managers were paranoid about students hacking the system, so didn't allow us to even see the library manuals. So, when I first came out of college, I didn't even think of libraries being available.
I am sure there are a lot of reasons why the newbie doesn't want to use the new library. But wouldn't this be a good opportunity, if you have enough time, to show them what the advantage of using the library is? With the people I work with, I will usually provide an example of why something is better than their approach. It helps them learn and mature as a programmer.
Happens that noobs use Libs without knowing, but when they must import/add one that is fairly less documented, there is a fear of unknow. That happens mostly for compiled langs!
In the interpreted, (or compiled IRT), mainly when there is a console, such fear is almost non-existent; since you can require and see if it fails, call a method and see what it returns.
Consoles are tools of bravery !
I am looking for a somewhat detailed explanation of which 3D Engine for Actionscript3 is the most efficient, practical, scalable, documented, community supported, etc. When I first got interested in the 3D world for flash and actionscript3, all I knew of was papervision3D. In my curious way I went to read up on papervision3D and was shocked at the lack of tutorials. Later I started to research Away3D and have found that their site is easy to traverse and there are many tutorials and easy to find documentation.
Is there something I am missing? Is papervision3D so good that it doesn't need tutorials and other mediums to help users adopt it and begin using it more often? Does it have a performance increase that allows this? Which 3D engine do you suggest?
I came up against this same issue a few months back. In the end, I went with Sandy3d. What did it for me is the amount of quality documentation and the really supportive community which really helped me get my project up and running.
http://www.flashsandy.org/blog/
I'd go with Away3D, if only because we know they are working so closely with Adobe to make sure that people's existing knowledge of their product translates as easily as possible to the upcoming Molehill version. If you're not already aware of it, Flash Player 11 is going to have an API for using OpenGL and/or DirectX 3D from within Flash. For those wishing to do 3D games and UI in Flash, this is going to be HUGE.
Papervision3D is going through the process of a full re-write to take advantage of CS4's new 3D capabilities. It sounds like they're also looking into mixing Alchemy into the engine to get a really big boost. You can check it out in a bit more detail here.
I've found that the irc channel for PV3D is fairly active and they've been able to answer any questions that I had due to an outdated tutorial or awkwardly documented section of code.
I don't have the reputation comment yet, so in response to David Hanak's comment above about viewport layers, the best use for them (that I've found) is to help with depth sorting. You can assign objects to a viewport layer and give that layer an index. Then tell the render to sort the viewport layers by index. It really helps reduce visual display errors.
AFAIK, Away3D is a fork of Papervision3D. You might be interested in this comparison of their features. It seems to me that PV3D is faster, although this blog entry might be pretty outdated.
What I would like to know is which library will be the first to support the 3D related features of Flash 10. That would mean so much in performance...
The thing is, that papervision has a good community. In long term usage, you should take that into account.
I was the same in the beginning. It was not obvious where to find what. But you should stick with it. I just worked on a prototype: Papervision3d + Jiglib (3d physics for flash, ported from c++) and SmartFox Server = fun mulitplayer game :D
Anyway: this might help: http://papervision2.com/tutorial-list/
the BEST one really is Alternativa3D, but you have to pay them for it. It's the only one that currently supports FP10 features, as we're still waiting on PapervisionX
Personally, I much prefer Away; although it started off life as a Papervision fork, they've diverged a long way since then. Most times I start a new 3D project, I begin by evaluating both (the time elapsed between projects often gives both engines time to go through some pretty major changes), and I always end up coming back to Away - to my eye, the rendering quality is a bit better, and it seems to be easier to Just Get Stuff Done with Away. I've never used Sandy, so I can't speak for that.
I've never had a problem getting support from the Away community - while PV's may be bigger, Away's certainly isn't short of helpful people.
In my experience, PV tends to accumulate whizzy features more quickly - it's probably the more bleeding-edge and technically impressive engine - but Away tends to be more stable, has a nicer API and is easier to hack about with ;)
This is all very much my own opinion, YMMV. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The best recommendation I can make is to evaluate both and see which works best for you.
I've used Papervision, Away3D, Alternativa and Sandy 3D (you can find tutorials for each here). I personally like Away3D better - it is free and has more features, as well as a Lite version if you just want the basics. I'm especially looking forward to the Haxe version, which might just let you compile stand alone executables in C++ with hxcpp.
Options for 3D in Flash boil down to Papervision3d, Away3D or Sandy 3d Engine. I find the first two to be the best, in terms of maturity, documentation and performance.
In case you're interested, on the blog of my company there is a series of posts comparing those 3D engines for Flash (in Spanish, although you can follow the examples and read the source code in English).
Away3D is the current free champ.
It is in active development, and supports Flash Player 11, Stage3D, etc.
I would also start looking at Blender3D for a game engine in the near future. It's not Flash, but is free, and fairly easy to program. The langage behind it is Python.