[HN Gopher] Show HN: I Wrote a Book on Java
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: I Wrote a Book on Java
https://www.manning.com/books/data-oriented-programming-in-j...
This book is a distillation of everything I've learned about what
effective development looks like in Java (so far!). It's about how
to organize programs around data "as plain data" and the
surprisingly benefits that emerge when we do. Programs that are
built around the data they manage tend to be simpler, smaller, and
significantly easier understand. Java has changed radically over
the last several years. It has picked up all kinds of new language
features which support data oriented programming (records, pattern
matching, `with` expressions, sum and product types). However, this
is not a book about tools. No amount of studying a screw-driver
will teach you how to build a house. This book focuses on house
building. We'll pick out a plot of land, lay a foundation, and
build upon it house that can weather any storm. DoP is based
around a very simple idea, and one people have been rediscovering
since the dawn of computing, "representation is the essence of
programming." When we do a really good job of capturing the data in
our domain, the rest of the system tends to fall into place in a
way which can feel like it's writing itself. That's my elevator
pitch! The book is currently in early access. I hope you check it
out. I'd love to hear your feedback. You can get 50% off (thru
October 9th) with code `mlkiehl`
https://www.manning.com/books/data-oriented-programming-in-j...
Author : goostavos
Score : 253 points
Date : 2024-09-23 18:56 UTC (4 hours ago)
| raju wrote:
| Let me start by saying (as someone who has written a few
| technical books of his own)--Congratulations!
|
| I am sure you (assuming this is your first book) are learning
| that this is a labor of love, and I wish you the very best in
| this endeavor. You should be proud!
|
| I was exposed to "data oriented programming" thanks to Clojure--
| wherein maps/sets are the constructs used to pass data (as plain
| data) around, with simple functions that work with the data, as
| opposed to the traditional OO (hello ORM) that mangles data to
| fit some weird hierarchy.
|
| Java's recent innovations certainly make this a lot easier, and I
| am glad someone is looking at propagating a much needed message.
|
| I will take a look at the book, but I wish you the very best.
| mrbonner wrote:
| I am also very interested in how this work in practice. With
| OOP at least you know the shape of your data structure as
| opposed to the hash map as a mere container type.
| akavi wrote:
| You can get strongly typed "shaped" data without objects[0],
| even in Java: Records[1].
|
| ~Unfortunately, I believe they're mutable (and cannot be made
| immutable).~ Edit: I was wrong, they're immutable.
|
| [0]: I'm using "object" to mean "data bound to methods",
| since the concept of aggregate data in general long pre-date
| OOP (eg, C's structs)
|
| [1]: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/language/recor
| ds.h...
| bedatadriven wrote:
| A record's fields are final, so records are immutable
| (though they can include immutable pointers to mutable
| objects)
| taftster wrote:
| Java Records are immutable (by the most common definition).
| They don't have any means to update the record (via
| setters, etc.) after construction. That doesn't mean, for
| example, you can't store a reference to a mutable type (for
| example, a List or Map) in your record.
|
| The frustration I have with Records is there is no good way
| to prevent direct construction of them. That is, the
| constructor is public, which prevents an easy way of
| enforcing an invariant during construction.
|
| For example, let's say that you have a record with a Date
| type. There's no good way to prevent a user from creating
| the record with an invalid date, one that is out of a
| needed date range. Or maybe enforcing a field cannot be
| null or some combination of fields must meet requirements
| as a group.
|
| The benefit I get from the classic Builder pattern is
| defeated with Records. I can't enforce checking of my
| fields before the construction of the record object itself.
| Presumably I would need to verify the object after
| construction, which is unfortunate.
| akavi wrote:
| Can you make the Record class private to a module, and
| only export a static function that constructs them?
|
| (I know very little about Java)
| kaba0 wrote:
| To a degree, yes, that's possible. But leaking a private
| type over module boundaries is bad form, so a better
| (though possibly over engineered solution) would be to
| have a separate public interface, implemented by the
| private record type, and the static function would have
| that interface as return type.
| vips7L wrote:
| You can enforce some invariants during construction:
| record Point(int x, int y) { Point {
| if (x < 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException()
| } }
|
| or if you want to assert something is not null:
| record Person(String name) { Person {
| requireNonNull(name); } }
| snmx999 wrote:
| You can create dedicated, already verified objects to
| pass on to your record. E.g. AllowedDate (extends Date).
| geophile wrote:
| I am an OOP programmer going back to the late 80s (including
| the cfront days of C++), and a serious user of Python since
| 2007.
|
| In Python, I sometimes try data-oriented programming, using
| lists and dicts to structure data. And I find that it does
| not work well. Once I get two or more levels of nesting, I
| find it far too easy to get confused about which level I'm
| on, which is not helped by Python's lack of strong typing. In
| these situations, I often introduce objects that wrap the map
| or dict, and have methods that make sense for that level. In
| other words, the objects can be viewed as providing clear
| documentation for the whole nested structure, and how it can
| be navigated.
| goostavos wrote:
| >Once I get two or more levels of nesting, I find it far
| too easy to get confused about which level I'm on
|
| Author here, I agree with you. I have the working memory of
| a small pigeon.
|
| The flavor of data orientation we cover in the book
| leverages strongly typed representations of data (as
| opposed to using hash maps everywhere). So you'll always
| know what's shape it's in (and the compiler enforces it!).
| We spend a lot of time exploring the role that the type
| system can play in our programming and how we represent
| data.
| joshlemer wrote:
| Given the strongly typed flavour of data oriented
| programming, I wonder if you have any thoughts on the
| "proliferation of types" problem. How to avoid,
| especially in a nominally typed language like Java, an
| explosion of aggregate types for every context where
| there may be a slight change in what fields are present,
| what their types are, and which ones are optional.
| Basically, Rich Hickey's Maybe Not talk.
| record Make(makeId, name) record Model(modelId,
| name) record Car(make, model, year)
| record Car(makeId, modelId, year) record
| Car(make, model) record Car(makeId, modelId)
| record Car(make, year) record Car(makeId, year)
| record Car(make, model, year, colour) record
| Car(makeId, modelId, year, colour) record
| Car(year, colour) ....
| nicoty wrote:
| I'm not familiar with Java. Does it have no notion of
| structural types at all? If it does, maybe you could wrap
| those fields in `Car` with `Maybe`/`Option` (I'm not sure
| what the equivalent is in Java) so you get something like
| `Car(Maybe Make, Maybe Model, Maybe Year, Maybe Colour)`?
| spullara wrote:
| yes and it is called Optional (rather than Maybe)
| goostavos wrote:
| I have a long convoluted answer to this.
|
| I love that talk (and most of Rich's stuff). I consider
| myself a Clojure fanboy that got converted to the dark
| side of strong static typing.
|
| I think, to some degree, he actually answers that
| question as part of his talk (in between beating up
| nominal types). Optionality often pops up in place of
| understanding (or representing) that data has a context.
| If you model your program so that it has "15 maybe
| sheep," then... you'll have 15 "maybe sheep" you've got
| to deal with.
|
| The possible combinations of all data types _that could
| be made_ is very different from the subset that actually
| express themselves in our programs. Meaning, the actual
| "explosion" is fairly constrained in practice because
| (most) businesses can't function under combinatorial
| pressures. There's some stuff that matters, and some
| stuff that doesn't. We only have to apply typing rigor to
| the stuff that matters.
|
| Where I _do_ find type explosions tedious and annoying is
| not in expressing every possible combination, but in
| trying to express the slow accretion of information. (I
| think he talks about this in one of his talks, too).
| Invoice, then InvoiceWithCustomer, then
| InvoiceWithCustomerAndId, etc... the world that
| microservices have doomed us to representing.
|
| I don't know a good way to model that without
| intersection types or something like Rows in purescript.
| In Java, it's a pain point for sure.
| jakjak123 wrote:
| Hopefully your domain is sane enough that you can read
| nearly all the data you are going to use up front, then
| pass it on to your pure functions. Speaking from a Java
| perspective.
| 1propionyl wrote:
| My sense is that what's needed is a generalization of the
| kinds of features offered by TypeScript for mapping types
| to new types (e.g. Partial<T>) "arithmetically".
|
| For example I often really directly want to express is "T
| but minus/plus this field" with the transformations that
| attach or detach fields automated.
|
| In an ideal world I would like to define what a "base"
| domain object is shaped like, and then express the
| differences from it I care about (optionalizing, adding,
| removing, etc).
|
| For example, I might have a Widget that must always have
| an ID but when I am creating a new Widget I could just
| write "Widget - {.id}" rather than have to define an
| entire WidgetCreateDTO or some such.
| piva00 wrote:
| > For example, I might have a Widget that must always
| have an ID but when I am creating a new Widget I could
| just write "Widget - {.id}" rather than have to define an
| entire WidgetCreateDTO or some such.
|
| In this case you're preferring terseness vs a true
| representation of the meaning of the type. Assuming that
| a Widget needs an ID, having another type to express a
| Widget creation data makes sense, it's more verbose but
| it does represent the actual functioning better, you pass
| data that will be used to create a valid Widget in its
| own type (your WidgetCreationDTO), getting a Widget as a
| result of the action.
| glenjamin wrote:
| Do you mean in TypeScript or in another language?
|
| In TS the `Omit<T, K>` type can be used to remove stuff,
| and intersection can be used to add stuff
| geophile wrote:
| This discussion sounds like there is confusion about the
| Car abstraction.
|
| Make and model vs. makeId and modelId: Pick one. Are Make
| and Model referenced by Cars or not? There seems a slight
| risk of the Banana/Monkey/Jungle problem here, so maybe
| stick with ids, and then rely on functions that lookup
| makes and models given ids. I think it's workable either
| way.
|
| As for all the optional stuff (color, year, ...): What
| exactly is the problem? If Cars don't always have all of
| these properties then it would be foolish of Car users to
| just do myCar.colour, for example. Test for presence of
| an optional property, or use something like Optional<T>
| (which amounts to a language supported testing for
| presence). Doesn't any solution work out pretty much the
| same? When I have had this problem, I have _not_ done a
| proliferation of types (even in an inheritance hierarchy)
| -- that seems overly complicated and brittle.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"In these situations, I often introduce objects that wrap
| the map or dict, and have methods that make sense for that
| level."
|
| I've been doing the same thing since the end of the 80s as
| well starting with Turbo/Borland Pascal, C++, and later any
| other language that supports OOP.
| sodapopcan wrote:
| Python's not really built for that AFAIK, though. In
| languages built for it, you can type your
| dicts/hashes/maps/whatever and its easier to see what they
| are/know where the functions that operate on them live. I'm
| most familiar with Elixir which has structs which are
| simply specialized map (analogous to dict in Python) where
| their "type" is the name of the module they belong to.
| There can only be one struct per module, In this sense is
| easy to know exactly where its functions live and is
| _almost_ like a class with the _very_ key difference that
| modules are not stateful.
| mejutoco wrote:
| I recommend you use pydantic for type annotations.
| Alternatively, dataclasses. Then you pair it with
| typeguards @typechecked annotation and the types will be
| checked at runtime for each method/function. You can use
| mypy to check it at "compile time".
|
| Having clear data types without oop is possible, even in
| python.
| js2 wrote:
| > Python's lack of strong typing
|
| I see people conflate strong/weak and static/dynamic quite
| often. Python is strong[1]/dynamic, with optional static
| typing through annotations and a type checker (mypy,
| pyright, etc).
|
| Perhaps the easiest way to add static types to data is with
| pydantic. Here's an example of using pydantic to type-check
| data provided via an external yaml configuration file:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41508243
|
| [1] strong/weak are not strictly defined, as compared to
| dynamic/static, but Python is absolutely on the strong end
| of the scale. You'll get a runtime TypeError if you try to
| add a number to a string, for example, compared to say
| JavaScript which will happily provide a typically
| meaningless "wat?"-style result.
| thelastparadise wrote:
| You're being pydantic =)
| kccqzy wrote:
| Clojure has spec. That allows you to know a specification of
| what the data structure contains.
| goostavos wrote:
| Thanks for the kind words :)
|
| >learning that this is a labor of love
|
| I underestimated both the amount of labor and the amount of
| love that would be involved. There were more than a few "throw
| everything out and start over" events along the way to this
| milestone.
|
| Clojure definitely had a huge impact on how I think about
| software. Similarly, Haskell and Idris have rearranged my
| brain. However, I still let Java be Java. The humble object is
| really tough to beat for managing many kinds of runtime
| concerns. The book advocates for strongly typed data and
| leveraging the type system as a tool for thinking.
|
| >Java's recent innovations certainly make this a lot easier
|
| Yeah, it's an exciting time! Java has evolved so much.
| Algebraic types, pattern matching, `with` expressions -- all
| kinds of goodies for dealing with data.
| greyskull wrote:
| Congratulations!
|
| I see that the book is incomplete. I didn't know that early
| access for books was a thing, very neat. It might be pertinent to
| note in your post that it's still being written, with an
| estimated release window of Spring 2025.
|
| I'm very much a "consume it when it's ready" person, so I'll keep
| this on my watch list.
| speerer wrote:
| I wonder whether it's the editing which is still in progress,
| or also the writing? The publication date seems very close if
| it's still being written.
|
| (edit-clarity)
| goostavos wrote:
| Writing is still in progress :)
|
| No firm date for the final publication yet.
| blorenz wrote:
| Congrats and keep going! I ultimately failed at mine because I
| didn't keep disciplined focus on it when life got in the way. It
| was many lessons learnt.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Hands-Django-Beyond-Brandon-2016-03-2...
| burningChrome wrote:
| Congrats on your accomplishments!
|
| I had two friends who both wrote separate books on JS. One early
| book on Angular and the other was about jQuery. Both had a hard
| time with the critical reviews they received on Amazon and it
| really dissuaded them from doing any more technical writing.
|
| I love your approach and hope you keep writing and don't let the
| trolls get to you! Our industry needs more people who have this
| "soup to nuts" approach and take into account how nearly every
| language has changed dramatically over time.
|
| Again, congrats and keep writing.
| mands wrote:
| Technical Editor: Brian Goetz - you have my attention...
| goostavos wrote:
| It has been awesome working with him.
|
| There are few things as intimidating as having the Java
| language architect review your book on Java (haha). It's a
| much, much better book thanks to his involvement.
| flakiness wrote:
| For people who're not aware: "Brian Goetz is a Java Language
| Architect at Oracle." (from the linked page.)
| WoodenChair wrote:
| Manning let me conduct an interview with Brian a few years ago
| for my book with them. Here is the transcript:
| https://freecontent.manning.com/interview-with-brian-goetz/
|
| He was very generous with his time and there are some good
| insights there for aspiring developers, as well as some info
| about the evolution of Java which may be relevant to the more
| data-oriented features that have been added in recent times.
| microflash wrote:
| After reading Brian's post[1] on data oriented programming
| years ago, I look forward for more on the subject using Java.
|
| [1]: https://www.infoq.com/articles/data-oriented-programming-
| jav...
| matsemann wrote:
| While I'm normally not a fan of appeal to authority, knowing
| this is what moves this from "will try to remember to check
| this out when I wake tomorrow" (it's 23:04 here) to "will
| definitely check out tomorrow".
|
| Also it being from Manning helps. It's difficult to find good
| books today, so easy to self publish or get reeled in by some
| paper mill that banks on people wanting to have a book on their
| resume. So have to have something to filter out signal in the
| noise.
| jhck wrote:
| Congrats on launching the early access! I'm familiar with data-
| oriented programming from Clojure and F#, and I'm interested in
| seeing how you approach it in Java, so I just picked up a copy
| (ebook). Wish you all the best on completing the book!
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| Do you have some F# examples of data orientated programming>?
| It seems to mean a lot of different things to different people.
| goostavos wrote:
| I can highly recommend excellent Domain Modeling Made
| Functional by Scott Wlaschin for an F# book that touches on a
| lot of the ideas which back data-oriented programming
| (namely, representing your domain as strongly typed data).
| TeaVMFan wrote:
| Congratulations! In case people are looking for other modern Java
| books, here's one I'm working for building modern web apps in
| Java:
|
| https://frequal.com/Flavour/book.html
|
| It describes how to make single-page apps in Java, using the
| Flavour framework. No plugins, no extensions, and 99.9% pure
| Java. Plenty of sample code and links to relevant podcast
| episodes and demos.
| mdaniel wrote:
| Ok, I'll bite: why Subversion in 2024?
| https://sourceforge.net/p/flavour/trunk/HEAD/tree/
|
| > TeaVMFan
|
| Ah, that explains a lot of the questions I had about "modern
| webapps in Java." Relevant:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25978053 _(TeaVM: Build
| Fast, Modern Web Apps in Java; Jan 2021)_
|
| Although I would, sincerely, enjoy hearing what KotlinJS
| doesn't do that made you want to roll your own framework?
| topspin wrote:
| How have you dealt with the current situation in Java where
| several new and important language features are still "preview"
| and are subject to being withdrawn? The possibility that these
| features might ultimately disappear is not theoretical: String
| Templates has been removed[1] from 23 as what would have been the
| "third preview," for example.
|
| The (likely debatable) list of features in 23 that a.) remain
| preview/incubator and b.) appear relevant to a work on data
| oriented Java programming are: Primitive Types
| in Patterns, instanceof, and switch (Preview) - JEP 455
| Implicitly Declared Classes and Instance Main Methods (Third
| Preview) - JEP 477 Flexible Constructor Bodies (Second
| Preview) - JEP 482 Vector API (Eighth Incubator) - JEP
| 469 Scoped Values (Third Preview) - JEP 481
|
| [1] https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-spec-
| experts/2024-A... "So, to be clear: there will be no string
| template feature, even with --enable-preview, in JDK 23." - Gavin
| Bierman
| goostavos wrote:
| I've thought a lot about this quite a bit. In my day to day
| life, which is a cog in the machine at $Megacorp, I regularly
| work on embarrassingly old versions of Java (hello JDK 8!). So,
| not having the latest and greatest language features is a topic
| close to my heart. As such, the book takes a very tool agnostic
| approach. If we cover something that's only available advanced
| JDKs, we also cover what to do if you don't have it.
|
| Data oriented programming is about building around the data in
| your domain. The latest tools are nice, but they're just tools.
| topspin wrote:
| I appreciate your conundrum. While it has been good to see
| Java language designers attempt to advance the language,
| they've been extremely conservative and non-committal. This
| is a problem because tooling is costly to develop and tool
| developers are forever facing the problem of whether to
| invest the work needed to integrate these language features
| when they take years to be realized, and may yet vanish.
| Likewise for authors, such as yourself.
| whartung wrote:
| I can't say I'm completely on top of the Java world, but I
| think the String Templates are one of the very few preview
| features that have been actually withdrawn and removed, right?
| Are there others?
|
| I know some drift a bit on their implementations over time, but
| have not be wholesale yanked out.
|
| Obviously the solution to this is to not rely on these preview
| functions for production code. The way to do that is to run
| production in an LTS version of Java. I don't think that's an
| extreme point of view, frankly.
|
| The new stuff is interesting and cool, and in time, it ends up
| in the LTS version.
|
| Having lived through Java 5, 6, and 8, these are halcyon times
| for Java. It's moving VERY fast, and has been for some time.
|
| Are there preview capabilities in the LTS versions? Yes, there
| are. But they're not under the LTS tent. Don't use them. The
| demarcation between the development releases and the LTS
| releases are a smart program to get features out into the
| world, and set some real lines in the sand for advancement. It
| helps keep preview items from staying in preview mode for an
| indeterminate amount of time.
|
| And the two year LTS release cycle for a notoriously
| conservative eco-system is ample.
| topspin wrote:
| > Are there others?
|
| String Literals (JEP 326) made it to preview and got pulled.
|
| > I don't think that's an extreme point of view, frankly.
|
| Can't see where I suggested otherwise. I just wondered how
| the author was handling all the "in-flight" (An OpenJDK term
| there, not mine) features that Java currently has
| outstanding.
|
| > It's moving VERY fast, and has been for some time.
|
| They've been fast at creating new preview features. Actually
| landing finalized features though? In my view they're taking
| too long. When I compare Java and Python in this respect --
| and I do as a working programmer in both on a frequent basis
| -- Java is still slow.
| globular-toast wrote:
| How does DoP compare to Domain Driven Design (DDD)?
| wredue wrote:
| DoP is the brain dead assertion that making your data runtime
| immutable will make your programs better.
|
| It doesn't. But the developers pushing it idiotic shit are
| extremely loud.
| elric wrote:
| It would be nice if you could elaborate on why you think it's
| idiotic. What's "better" for one scenario could be worse for
| another. There are tradeoffs to be made.
|
| In my experience immutable data simplifies a lot of things
| and avoids a lot of common problems related to concurrency.
| Implementing efficient copy-on-write isn't too hard when
| everything is immutable.
| wredue wrote:
| You're making your programs orders of magnitude slower to
| the back of claims that have absolutely zero metric
| demonstration.
|
| >simplifies a lot of things
|
| Runtime immutability simplifies nothing.
|
| >avoids common problems related to concurrency
|
| While simultaneously creating new problems. Like fine, you
| cannot make an edit on an object out from under the rug of
| another thread... except that in most cases, you have now
| just made that old object into invalid state that is
| lingering around your program like a death trap and to get
| around this, you are forced in to some pretty terrible
| synchronization bullshit that just locking objects doesn't
| suffer from.
|
| >Implementing CoW is not too difficult
|
| The single greatest predictor of defects for every single
| language ever is "lines of code". Implementing CoW sounds
| straight forward, but actually, incorrect CoW is a common
| source of bugs and you are just hand waving that away.
| brookritz wrote:
| These developers are immutable.
| blackqueeriroh wrote:
| Purchased! I know very little about programming still, but Java
| is a language I have dealt with and will likely continue to have
| to deal with for the rest of my career, so here we go!
| smusamashah wrote:
| The link is returning 404 for me.
| jroseattle wrote:
| Congrats on writing and completing a book! I was involved in a
| few myself long ago, when I had the time available to contribute
| to those endeavors. In a world that often measures "the juice
| being worth the squeeze", I'm not sure authoring technical
| manuals would ever meet the criteria.
|
| One of my personal photos I keep around was taken long ago in
| what was the biggest bricks/mortar bookseller. I was looking at
| the selection of books on Java available at the time. O'Reilly
| was the dominant publisher, and thus had several offerings on the
| wall. Most of the books were at least 2 inches thick. (If you
| were ever involved with writing a technical book in the early
| 2000s, you'll understand the publisher metrics at the time were
| based on the width of the spine on the shelf.)
|
| Among the many Java manuals of significant girth was a small,
| THIN book with the title "Java -- the Good Parts". :-{}
| elric wrote:
| Does it include any content related to algebraic data types?
| goostavos wrote:
| It does! Chapter 4 specifically tackles modeling with sum and
| product types. They're used all throughout the book after that.
| elric wrote:
| Nice, thanks! The website suggests that the book will be
| published next spring. I'll be sure to preorder the print
| version.
| das_keyboard wrote:
| As someone coming from gaming, somehow early-access for books
| seems weird
| dzonga wrote:
| congrats. Data Oriented Programming is cool, but you can easily
| get lost in the complexity of certain things.
|
| there's another related book from one person active in the
| Clojure ecosystem. Though the book examples are in JS.
|
| also, thank you for taking the step forward on doing your own
| small part in changing the 'AbstractFactory' thinking that's
| pervasive in the Java world.
| necovek wrote:
| First up, congrats on getting over the hump -- I struggle to
| complete a blog post, so I very much appreciate the effort it
| takes to do this!
|
| A confusing sentence I noticed in the first chapter:
|
| > ...then the only thing cost was some time, if they do it wrong,
| the cost is usually a bug.
|
| I am guessing you mean "only cost was some time" (without the
| "thing")?
|
| As for the topic, my hypothesis is slightly different -- adopting
| functional approach to programming -- even in imperative
| languages -- leads you to the best patterns (or as you put it,
| "makes it inevitable") when combined with "evolutionary"
| architecture, and DoP is certainly one of them.
|
| However, for a majority of software, in my experience, data
| "attributes" are really "leaf nodes", only to be consumed for
| display, and types do not really matter much there (eg. I don't
| mind `firstName` being a simple string). What we want to get
| right is types we do operations on, and most critically,
| relations between different data models. Accepting "evolutionary"
| principles in architecture also means that you welcome change and
| build for it, so getting any definition of data right from start
| is not an imperative.
|
| But the topic certainly seems intriguing, so I look forward to
| learning more from your book and seeing how you apply it in a
| more imperative/OO way and what language features you found
| critical to success there.
|
| Congrats again and good luck!
| necovek wrote:
| Another typo:
|
| > ...no bad states to defend again.
|
| Defend "against", I guess?
| goostavos wrote:
| Oof -- embarrassing! At least I know what I'll be thinking
| about as I try to fall asleep tonight.
|
| Thanks for pointing out the typos and wonky wording! Will
| fix!
| olpquest22 wrote:
| Congratulations! consider posting about in
| https://www.reddit.com/r/java/ it is a very active java
| community.
| goostavos wrote:
| Will do!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-23 23:00 UTC)