It is unnecessarily complicated; if you set JAVA_HOME you can quote it in PATH. Saves trouble when installing a new version of the JDK.
Jirka Pinkas wrote:PATH set without reference to JAVA_HOME - It works as desired. I don't want to teach people Windows administration, but Java programming.
If you already have a Java installation the PATH will find the old installation; if that is an earlier major release of the JRE, you may suffer an exception. The new path entry belongs at the beginning of the path
Adding new PATH entry at the end of old path - why is this wrong? It works as desired.
Three, in the first two minutes of watching.
Need to restart computer - OK, I admit, there's an error. One must restart commandline, not computer.
Still wrong. A file may contain several classes, for example. You are supposed to teach correctly, not something which will have to change later.
Classes are files with the same name and java extension - for beginners who usually don't know difference between class and object it's much easier to grasp.
Beginners’ classes may be put in the unnamed package. In fact, it causes so much confusion for beginners to try compiling in packages that beginners’ classes ought to be in unnamed package.
You should never put a class in the default package - since Java 1.4 you really shouldn't. Tell me one good reason why?
Still incorrect nomenclature. You can call a method on an object; you try calling a constructor on an object. Constructors are not members of the class, methods are.
A constructor called a special method - What is a constructor, if not a method, that is called during creation of an object?
The correct source for names is the Java™ Language Specification. I know a lot of people copy the names wrongly, or have been taught wrongly themselves, but keeping the correct names makes for better understanding between programmers easier. Where did you get “implicit” from?
A no-arguments constructor called a default constructor - or implicit constructor? If you read different literature, you would see different names for this simple thing.
In which case you are mistaken, but I saw no need to publish it.
I think, that you never created any tutorial.
I am putting the ball back in your court. I challenge you to explain why the tutorial you quoted is any good, when there are far better offerings available. There is a load of good stuff on the net, but there is also rubbish. You ought only to recommend the good stuff. Justify why you recommended that tutorial.
It's easy to criticize, but much harder to create something.
You showed up just in time for the waffles! And this tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koophttps://coderanch.com/wiki/718759/books/Building-World-Backyard-Paul-Wheaton