Customer Reviews


3 Reviews
5 star:    (0)
4 star:
 (2)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (1)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Java 21 Days
Working my way through the book at the moment, would recommend this for beginners, or anyone unfamiliar with object oriented programming, The step by step tutorials and examples make it easy to learn and understand some of the basics of programming Java, However I should warn there are some insignificant errors in syntax that I've come across in some of the instructions,...
Published on 11 Feb. 2013 by K.

versus
25 of 27 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Too many mistakes, I would rate 0 if it were possible
I am an experienced programmer (Perl, C++) and I bought this book to bring me up to speed with Java.

This quality of this book is inadequate.

Since the back cover claims "No previous programming experience required" it is particularly important that the information contained in the book is correct and accurate, it is not.

I stopped reading...
Published on 16 Sept. 2012 by Neil


Most Helpful First | Newest First

25 of 27 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Too many mistakes, I would rate 0 if it were possible, 16 Sept. 2012
By 
Neil (Weymouth, United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days (Covering Java 7 and Android) (Paperback)
I am an experienced programmer (Perl, C++) and I bought this book to bring me up to speed with Java.

This quality of this book is inadequate.

Since the back cover claims "No previous programming experience required" it is particularly important that the information contained in the book is correct and accurate, it is not.

I stopped reading after the first 80 pages, this book has not been appropriately proof-read and the text contains too many errors for the author to be trustworthy on the subject of Java.

Examples:

Page 24

"For now, the most important thing to note is the static keyword, which indicates that the method is a class method shared by all VolcanoRobot objects."

should read

For now, the most important thing to note is the static keyword, which indicates that the method is a class method shared by all VolcanoApplication objects.

This seems trivial but is very confusing.

Page 47

"An integer literal larger than an int can hold automatically is considered to be of the type long."

This is simply incorrect. The fact that the author wrote this, is a strong indicator that he has no experience programming Java professionally.

a correct statement would be "an integer literal larger than an int can hold causes the build to fail and the compiler to flag the error as `integer number too large' unless the integer literal ends with an L (uppercase or lowercase)".

This simple program demonstrates this fact (and can be tested easily with NetBeans)
class TestingIntLiterals {
public static void main(String[] arguments) {
final int BigIntLiteral = 222_222_222_222_222_222;
System.out.println("BigIntLiteral is : " + BigIntLiteral);
}
}

from the Oracle documentation
[...]

Integer Literals
An integer literal is of type long if it ends with the letter L or l; otherwise it is of type int.

Page 47

"Counting up from 0, binary values are 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 111, and so on"

should read

Counting up from 0, binary values are 0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, and so on

This is trivial but demonstrates that neither the author nor the proof-reader can count accurately in binary. Would anyone accept a maths text book that stated "Lets count from 1 to 10: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 5, 6, 8, 9. 10" ?

Page 48

"All floating-point literals are considered to be of the double variable type instead of float".

this is not accurate and suggests (with the integer literal mistakes above) that the author really doesn't understand literals.

a correct statement would be

All floating-point literals that do not end in an F (uppercase or lowercase) are of type double.

from the Oracle documentation
[...]

Floating-Point Literals
A floating-point literal is of type float if it ends with the letter F or f; otherwise its type is double and it can optionally end with the letter D or d.

Page 57

"The difference between & and && lies in how much work Java does on the combined expression. If & is used, the expressions on both sides of the & are evaluated no matter what. If && is used and the left side of && is false, the expression on the right side of the && never is evaluated."

This is muddle-headed information. The difference between & and && is very important to understand (and not particularly complicated). The difference is NOT about how much work Java does or does not do.

An accurate statement would be:

The difference between & and && is that & is for low-level bitwise operations and && is for logical operations. Always use && unless you are manipulating bit-flags within a variable or performing bit-based mathematics.

Page 70

"Extending the preceding example, suppose the customer object is an instance variable of the store class. Dot notation can be used twice, as in this statement:

float total = store.customer.orderTotal;

this is wrong and muddle-headed, probably demonstrating that the author doesn't understand the fundamental object-oriented concepts of class, object, static variables and instance variables.

correct statements would be either

1)
store is an object instantiated from the Store class and the customer object is an instance variable of the store object. Dot notation can be used twice, as in this statement:

float total = store.customer.orderTotal;

(this would agree with the author's naming convention stated on Page 41)

or

2)
store is a class and the customer object is a static (class) variable of the store class. Dot notation can be used twice, as in this statement:

float total = store.customer.orderTotal;

(this would contradict the author's naming convention stated on Page 41)

or

3)
Store is a class and the customer object is a static (class) variable of the Store class. Dot notation can be used twice, as in this statement:

float total = Store.customer.orderTotal;

(this would agree with the author's naming convention stated on Page 41)

Page 73

The example code on page 73 does not produce the output given on page 74.

In particular

String str = " Would you like an apple pie with that?";
System.out.println("The index of the beginning of the " + "substring \"IBM\": " + str.indexOf("IBM));

does not generate

The index of the beginning of the substring "apple": 18

Conclusion: A Teach yourself book on Java with so many mistakes is worse than useless.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Java 21 Days, 11 Feb. 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days (Covering Java 7 and Android) (Paperback)
Working my way through the book at the moment, would recommend this for beginners, or anyone unfamiliar with object oriented programming, The step by step tutorials and examples make it easy to learn and understand some of the basics of programming Java, However I should warn there are some insignificant errors in syntax that I've come across in some of the instructions, but these are noted at the start of the text and I believe have been amended in alternative issues? If not the online support site that comes with the book at least offers better help for understanding these errors, in most cases these are simply syntax errors that can solve yourself.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Clear, easy & fun, 4 April 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days (Covering Java 7 and Android) (Paperback)
What more can I say...

Indeed clear, easy and fun! Recomended for new starters with some basic coding background. I found the quick tips very helpfull and made my own refrences easy enough...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days (Covering Java 7 and Android)
Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days (Covering Java 7 and Android) by Rogers Cadenhead (Paperback - 17 Aug. 2012)
£23.19
In stock
Add to basket Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews