Jim Crawford

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Sep 08, 2002
Merit badge: grant badges
For More
Cows and Likes
Total received
In last 30 days
Total given
Total received
Received in last 30 days
Total given
Given in last 30 days
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Jim Crawford

Yes, well put.

I was disappointed though, to see his inital positive thoughts turn negative. I especially hate the 'java is slow' generalisation. Maybe we should let the Unreal (or Halflife more recently) people try their hand at it. I always preferred them to the Carmack crowd
19 years ago
Comment anyone?

John Carmack decides to code a Java game for his new cell phone just for fun and writes about the problems he had with J2ME while doing so.


From http://www.osnews.com/
19 years ago
Ye. Don't see many people that failed here. In fact I haven't seen one. Maybe natural not to post if you didn't pass, but because of this thread I was wondering about fail numbers.
I guess with a thread like
"Anyone failed?"
either noone posts a fail, or (too) many passed.

2 cents.
Basically I don't feel I deserve to pass because I know how much I knew of the subject matter (please don't fail me just for saying that ;-) ).
I got 90% on SCJP and I still felt very 'unready' to take the exam - it says something about my opinion on the exam standard.
I thing the following nails the problem and provides good solutions.

Originally posted by Sathya Srinivasan:
... the beta exam would be perceived as a tough exam. However, as time goes, I would expect J2ME (hopefully) to gain more mass and that people would starting working in J2ME, thereby developing practical knowledge. Once that happens, the exam would not look as tough as the beta testers felt and hence might pass easily, thereby breaking the statistical analysis.

One more observation I can make from this thread is that there is a perceived value to a pass percentage. Most of us, regardless of which country we are in (I studied in India and in USA), have developed a notion that 70% - 80% and above (A or B grade) is a good score. To suddenly see 55% as a pass score (equivalent to a D) creates a psychological feeling that the exam is not strict enough.

This is also very true and is basically what bothers many people. Maybe the actual question content should be mathematically manipulated to 'insert' more easy questions in order to achieve a higher passing score.

1. Sun should revise the pass percentage on a periodic basis so that future test takers find passing the exam relatively difficult. I believe the exam versioning mechanism, although a money-making scheme, also helps alleviate this problem indirectly.
2. Sun should provide a grade along with the score and make it mandatory to display a score when people say the passed a certification, much like standard exam. This can potentially be controversial since people who pass the exam with, say, 60% would not be happy to tout that they got a C on the exam. But it will definitely be fair to those who passed the exam with 95%

I think these are both good options and I think you should show your score. If the score bothers you, retake the exam.
Bert - comment? To unrealistic to be implemented right? Doesn't make enough business political sense right? Oh well...
Who should I bribe to pass?
I pay top dollar.
Just kidding.
My server that will communicate with the J2ME app is behind a firewall. I'm assuming that if this was not the case I would just be able to connect directly to the server from the phone. Now I can get access to a WAP gateway... which would make the connection possible I guess. There is also an option to route GPRS traffic to my server.. which would be more complicated to configure for the people that has to set it up.
My question is - would it make sense to use the WAP gateway? I don't even think I'll reply back to the J2ME app request in WML since the communication would be on HTTP level.
Does this make any sense? I need some clarity.

20 years ago
Well... guess that could be it yes. Its been a while since I struggled with that.
So prefixing with a class name gives the statement a static context - interesting. Probably true.
What's the deal with this?!
I'm also a tad peed off that there has been an extention and I was forced to take the exam earlier. Guess we can just hope for the best and maybe Sun would give us 0.5% credit or something. :roll:
Maybe I should answer my own question by saying it seems unlikely and very vendor dependant. MIDP 2.0 seems like the only option and even there its not guaranteed.
Would it be possible, through what's availible in MIDP 1.0 to listen in some way for a connection like MIDP 2.0 ServerSocketConnection does?
1 more vote for extension. :roll:
Well... we can hope

Originally posted by Maciej Wegorkiewicz:
... or in MIDP 2.0 spec is an error.

You'd find that often this isn't the case...

Look at the example on page 95 (SamplePingMe class).
On start of the startApp() it checks dconn == null.
But dconn is not initialized in constructor!

Dude - dconn is a class member. Its automatically initialized to null.