You must have either an outdated, slow computer or a very bad network connection, if you find looking up faster in "Java in a Nutshell" (a fine book, though). I have had no such problem with the online reference, yet my connection is average DSL, my computer slightly below average memory and CPU speed.
Also, I have to disagree that the online reference is "not very good". True, I have found some APIs woefully underdocumented there, but I am very pleased with the amount of effort they put into documenting the most fundamental APIs -- though I went on record in one of these Google Android groups complaining about the strong appearance of contradiction in the reference concerning Activity Lifecycle. BTW: the Sun Java reference left many things "not explained very well" too, especially those changes Sun must have been embarrassed to make, such as deprecating Thread.stop(), Properties.save() or replacing AWT with Swing; they just could not bring themselves to admit that to explain the new ways well, they had to admit the faults of the old. An even more glaring failure to explain in the Java docs concerns the entire HTTP functionality of java.net: almost everyone uses the Apache classes for this instead -- with good reason. Apache's (org.apache.http) really is much better. So no, Java's online docs are not superior to Android's. They just have different faults. Once you get used to Android's online reference, which I hope you will, then you will see they are not so bad. This is a good thing, since there really is nothing else comparable. That said, there is one alternative I have long considered exploring: Motorola's documentation for their own spinoff of the Android SDK: Motodev Studio for Android. You might give that a try. Their documentation might please you more. On Jul 16, 5:17 am, DanH <danhi...@ieee.org> wrote: > I've looked at the online reference and it's not very good. "Cuter" > than the Sun Java stuff, but not as comprehensive and doesn't explain > things very well. And it's a lot slower referencing an online > reference than, say, looking up something in "Java in a Nutshell". > > One thing that seems to be missing all around is images of the various > widgets. One of the books (I forget which one -- don't have them here > with me now) has virtually no images at all, while the other has > precious few. > > As to the "... in 24 Hours" books, I had to buy them sight-unseen, so > I based my choices on newness and ratings. In many other such books > about a quarter of the book is devoted to a basic reference -- enough > to get me started -- but not with these. > > (And from browsing the messages here I'm guessing that many of the > developers learned C++, if not Android, in 24 hours or less.) > > On Jul 16, 3:05 am, Indicator Veritatis <mej1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > If you insist on using a screwdriver as a hammer, of course you will > > complain about the quality of the hammer: you ask about REFERENCE > > books, but neither of the books you cite are meant as reference books. > > > As for why there is such a shortage of reference books, that is > > because the best reference is not a book, it is the online reference > > Google maintains athttp://developer.android.com. > > > No book publishing cycle can possibly keep up fast enough to compete > > with that -- as a reference. The books are good for explaining things > > that references do not even try to include. The books on Android from > > Wrox, Manning , O'Reilly, Pragmatic Programmer's and yes, Commonware > > all do this. > > > Besides: no book titled "...Development in 24 hours" should be taken > > seriously. Even though the best of them really do cram an amazing > > amount of material in a mere 24 hours worth, 24 hours is simply > > unreasonably short: there is no way Android development could be > > taught in 24 hours. > > > On Jul 15, 12:44 pm, DanH <danhi...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > Is there one? I have "Professional Android 2 Application Development" > > > by Meier and "Teach Yourself Android Application Development in 24 > > > Hours" by Darcy/Conder. Both are mediocre at best. > > > > Neither is a decent REFERENCE, but rather they are basically > > > structured as tutorials, without nothing in the way of reasonably > > > comprehensive API documentation (which also, BTW, is woefully > > > inadequate on the android.com site). And no sort of in-depth > > > discussion of the structure of the system, so one could perhaps > > > understand it rather than simply using the (inadequate) cookbooks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
