1Z0-815 Book (Second Edition, August 1, 2020 Build 2.1): Typo in Chapter 1 figures

Post Reply
JJJ2020
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:41 am
Contact:

1Z0-815 Book (Second Edition, August 1, 2020 Build 2.1): Typo in Chapter 1 figures

Post by JJJ2020 »

Hi:

Chapter 12 is one of the Epic Chapters. I made it thru my first pass and am going to try the exercises soon.
In a chapter this large, I wouldn't have expected to find nothing to quibble about, but it is very important material and a very solid presentation, so I consider it worth mentioning everything. There's no way a book preparing people for any current or future OJCP version won't have this material in it.
OK:

First a flashback. On p. 60 we explain "There are several rules about the initialization of final variables, but.... I will revisit this topic in 'Reusing implementations thru inheritance' chapter." Now, this was funny, because it set me up to think that I hadn't seen the "final" stuff about "Final" yet until I got here (Chapter 12)...but in fact, the last word on this topic (initialization of final variables) indeed is now in 10.4.5, which I had already commented about minor sequencing issues that it was involved in. Good thing too, it is complex enough without any more to come. I'm FINALly done studying that issue.

So starting out the Chapter we ARE discussing here, on p. 258 we say "There are two things" I found that hard to read. Either I would explicitly number them 1., 2., or use the word and. The two smooshed together as written and I had to read the sentence three times.
This was compounded by the issue of static members, while I was reading it I was thinking "But a class contains more than two kinds of things! What about static data members and methods?" We get to that very soon, so maybe it is okay saying "There are two things"; I might have preferred saying "We will get to the curious case of how static members behave with inheritance soon, but apart from that there are two things" - either way I found that sentence difficult to get thru, as my brain threw multiple exceptions parsing it as described above and attendant re-tries.

near the bottom of the same page, describing recent-ish Java 8 innovations we write "to inherit implementations from more than one types" -- the word types should be singular due to peculiarities of English Grammar.

p. 265 Section 12.1.5 - "Functionality that is...need" -- that need should have an s in standard American grammar variant, i.e. Functionality is treated as singular. Minor but I was reading this very closely.

p. 266 1st paragraph: "several advantages with this approach" I would say "to" rather than "with" in such sentences, it flows better.

p. 272 I would show ("A") in TestClass's call to new Manager("A") in the figure. The println() output for Person doesn't match what is seen in the code and the walkthru. Again, minor points, but such a crucial explication here, removing any possible chances for confusion is merited. A certain percentage of people who will eventually pass will be staring hard at this trying to make sense of it...

p. 273 "This begs the question that how" - I would just say "question of how" - not a hard and fast rule but just more idiomatic.

p. 279 java.lang.String is treated in Chapter 5 in current version. Yup, there's no perfect sequence for a book like this, but post-rewrite this foreshadows something long past. So it should be "we saw..."

p.281 in Exam Tip Box: near end "The main method does not have TO be final" we dropped the word "to".

p. 286 A couple of quibbles: "these rules works" strike the final s, as 'these rules' are plural. We hates the Bagginses, we does.
Now, please note, I am not just complaining on principle, and nobody is a bigger critic of how terribly broken English spelling is than I am.
One of my impossible dreams about fixing our world after abolishing Daylight Saving Time once and for all would be to fix English Spelling, which is worse than anything except maybe French Spelling. But we are stuck in a fallen world, so...
I'm not just complaining on principle, because once certified, test takers might want to get a job at a bank, so of principal importance to get that homonym right. i.e. computeInterest( principal, ) also 287, 299, 302, 303 at least. I've had more exciting jobs than bank jobs. Cool cutting edge exciting space-age stuff. That didn't bring in money. Staff cuts happened. Bank jobs pay. So much for that principle -- I notice this because I try to remember it for interviews with banks - many Americans have no principles and can't spell or compute interest. But I digress, we should just fix those.

p. 288 we typo'd to CompountInterestCalculator from CompounD (for emphasis, the letter should be lowercase).

p. 290 near bottom: CONTENT ALERT - "Are we confusing strong typing with static typing?" Computer Science Zealots who know fifty languages each have accused me numerous times of confusing the terms Strong and Static typing, pointing out that one can have Strong Dynamic Typing at Runtime, and that Static Type-Checking just means it happens at compile time - it ain't necessarily strong. I always grunt and say "Whatever, dude, I like strong static typing it makes me feel safe so I don't ask my bank account to bark and my dog to compute interest" but we are writing a tutorial book here, so I ask.



Cheers!
Jesse

JJJ2020
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:41 am
Contact:

Re: 1Z0-815 Book (Second Edition, August 1, 2020 Build 2.1): Typo in Chapter 1 figures

Post by JJJ2020 »

p. 291 I believe Paul already found "allows you the check" which isn't even wrong, but more appropriate in a novel than straight-forward tech tutorial.
"just give them any kind fruit" - I would always write kind OF fruit in that sentence
comments in sample box: "all fruits are not mangoes" I would say that should be:
"not all fruits are mangoes" -- I am a bit obsessive about this
I have seen this in very important political/business/legal contexts, it is very unclear
"all great programmers are not obsessive about grammar" -- WRONG!! I know several who are, disproving this.
That sounds like "no great programmers are obsessive about grammar" -- we know that isn't true
"No fruits are mangoes"?? Nonsense, I've eaten thousands, they were definitely fruits, even unripe in savory dishes...
I would press for this consistent change in all educational, business and legal writings.
You could write "Some fruits are not mangoes" without being confusing, but why not just write "not all fruits are mangoes"? I can go either way, depending on what you want to emphasize, neither is ambiguous.
But not "all fruits are not mangoes" which sounds way too much to me like "no fruit is a mango"
'nuff said. (Probably too much)...wait -- you guys write Mock Test Questions for a living -- definitely not too much then.
I totally panic when the only way to choose an answer is to ignore my first interpretation of a statement as written and choose a different one. It affects not only that question but the next several until I regain my composure....of course not as bad as C. NONE OF THE ABOVE D. ALL OF THE ABOVE - I feel like it is never logically valid to choose D. because then C would have to have been true which means...

p. 294 "type the Fruit" seems to have meant "the type Fruit" or "the Fruit type" : 'type the fruit' is preferred in epic poetry and purple prose, but not in straight-forward techspicatoins.

That's all I have to say about this epic, cornerstone chapter. I did notice that some of the exercises I am about to do require one to know how to declare an interface, which formally gets introduced only in the next chapter, but whatever, if worst comes to worst someone will read ahead before doing those couple of problems.

Only one more huge chapter (13) before I am looking down the home stretch. What a book! Many extremely important foundational concepts are explicated in 12, that so many are confused about, which is why I put all the attention into it and thus noticed these little hairs out of place.

JJJ2020
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:41 am
Contact:

Re: 1Z0-815 Book (Second Edition, August 1, 2020 Build 2.1): Typo in Chapter 1 figures

Post by JJJ2020 »

I blame autocorrect/typeahead for the wrong topic here. I swore what I wrote ended in "Chapter 12" but I may have recovered wrongly from a timeout....

Online
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 8992
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:26 pm
Contact:

Re: 1Z0-815 Book (Second Edition, August 1, 2020 Build 2.1): Typo in Chapter 1 figures

Post by admin »

> 258 we say "There are two things"
Right, it should say, "From OO perspective...".

>"these rules works"
It feels so embarrassing to see these type of mistakes.

>p. 290 near bottom: CONTENT ALERT -
Yes, that is a mistake. "the type of the variable is defined at compile time itself and it cannot be changed once defined" is static type. Should be fixed to: Now, Java is a strongly typed language, which means that once the type of the variable is defined, it cannot be changed.
It is a statically typed language as well, but that is, of course, not the point here.

The rest are noted.

thank you again for being so considerate about the grammatical errors.
Paul.
If you like our products and services, please help us by posting your review here.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest