• fl42v@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 days ago

    But answer07 is an object… Not sure what your teacher/ta disliked 😆

    • schema@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      To be needlessly pedantic on this joke, answer07 in itself is not an object, but a class, a blueprint for objects. An instance of that class would be an object. Calling the static function main does also not create an instance of the class in the class loader.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        To expand on that you can never instantiate an object of type answer07 since it’s a static class.

        (For the students here the “static” modifier means “it’s on the class, not the object”. Non-static will only be accessible as a “obj.whatever” but static is accessible by “Class.whatever”)

        • schema@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Is the class declared static? I assume the “…ic class Answer07” at the top stands for “public class Answer07”.

          I don’t think java supports top level static classes (it does have nested static classes, though).

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            It looks like exactly 4 characters are missing, so public and static would fit, but I never saw static instead of public static, so I think you’re right. On the other hand, I don’t use Java anymore and couldn’t be bothered about such details

    • Matty_r@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      7 days ago

      I presume WeatherData.getData() should be going into some Data class that has multiple properties (using the , as a delimiter) instead of what OP is doing and just using the String

      • fl42v@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I mean, unless it’s explicitly specified, one can still argue. For fun, that is. I did it a few times with stuff like using maps when the task said I couldn’t use loops. Didn’t really get into trouble since there was a proper solution ready as well.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Depends on what was the course about. If it’s about computation, then sure. If it’s about OOP or architecture design (this one I wouldn’t expect, unfortunately, but would be nice if it was taught somewhere), then the point is not just to run something.

    • Hellfire103@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Oh, I haven’t handed it in yet. We were supposed to write our own methods.