 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
>> Personally, I think this understanding is so important that I would say
>> *all* programmers should, at one point or another, learn to write
>> complete programs in assembly language, by hand. Not that they should
>> use machine language for their jobs, but because knowing how computers
>> *really* work will help them write better programs in the long run.
>
> OTOH, starting too low can lead to what I call the C-hacker syndrome.
I didn't say it should be the *first* thing they learn :) I would guess
that starting out in a higher level language would prepare someone to
deal with most of the problems you point out.
Although, I'll readily admit a lack of empirical data...
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The C-hacker will have a very strong prejudice against higher-level
> programming paradigms and languages.
I would add "they tend to call things 'bondage and discipline
languages'", even if they're relatively low level. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> but because knowing how computers
> *really* work will help them write better programs in the long run.
I taught my boss how semiconductors work last week. Why blue LEDs aren't
just "red LEDs with a different color". And why TTL takes more current
than CMOS. :-) If you don't know why computers work in binary, and you
can't prove that 2's compliment math works, you still haven't gotten all
the way to the bottom. :-)
What's all this "assembly language" high-level stuff? ;-)
I remember coming into the lab at Bellcore, seeing one of the guys
writing some C code, saying "Oh, getting down to some low-level stuff,
eh?" He said "I'm writing a device driver for this joystick I just
built." I said "Oh, getting down to some high-level stuff, eh?"
But yah, that's why I thought the article was interesting. It had a
combination of opinions that wasn't black-and-white.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Look at it as if it is a program. The conclusions are the main routine.
That's what always killed me about mathematical proofs. They always
start with all the details, and finally tell you why you care. :-)
I would clarify by saying the document should also *start* with the
conclusion, because people are going to be trying to recreate the
structure in their head as they read.
That's what is killing me about reading the Erlang documentation: there
are all sorts of cross-references, and no obvious place to start
reading. I wouldn't be surprised if there are circular references
throughout, either.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:47f931ae$1@news.povray.org...
>
> The disdain that "real" programmers feel for newbies who crank out quick
> code using "toy" languages is, I think, more akin to the disdain "real"
> mathematicians feel towards business math majors. Sure, they can "press
> the buttons", but they don't really know what they're doing. It's not
> about jealousy - after all, many programmers who started out writing
> assembly code are now using higher level languages and cranking out code
> just as quickly. It's about perceived understanding of what your code
> actually does.
Agreed.
What bugs me no end is that some people don't want to learn. They're not
interested in understanding what the code does. They just want to get
something 'working' (for certain definitions of working) as fast as
possible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The C-hacker will have a very strong prejudice against higher-level
>> programming paradigms and languages.
>
> I would add "they tend to call things 'bondage and discipline
> languages'", even if they're relatively low level. :-)
Oh yeah, I've seen that one...
Premature optimisation is a Bad Thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> What bugs me no end is that some people don't want to learn. They're not
> interested in understanding what the code does. They just want to get
> something 'working' (for certain definitions of working) as fast as
> possible.
Well, some people have a "real job" to do, and a computer is just a tool
to them.
OTOH, these people should *not* be developing nontrivial code. Of any
description! That should be left to genuine experts... [And if *they*
have an attitude of not wanting to learn... I'm sorry, there really is
no excuse.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ["So you see, the derivative of a Nth order polynomial is a polynomial
>> of order N-1. And that means - ooo, I wonder if dolphins can hear in
>> stereo?"]
>
> Well, can they?
...WTF? How would *I* know!
>> Now, if only I knew the magical incantation. [You know, the one that
>> makes her go from "ok, I'm sitting here with a bunch of people
>> chatting" to "hey, that boy is cute. I should make out with him..."]
>
> BTW I am not sure if you have already past your 'cute' date
NNOOOOOOOO!!!! >_<
Damn it, I'm glad I read this *after* the trip. :'(
> You might try to go for 'interesting'.
> I think that is much safer. And you do have some unique features.
Ah. Is *that* the polite term for "you're freakin' weird, dude"?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DatingIsHarderThanProgramming
>
> Thanks for that. That's way funny.
Agreed.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Generally, you should cut about 2/3 of your first draft, no matter how
> good it is. Whatever fluff you come up with on the first write, you
> have better stuff inside your head waiting for the second draft.
Right. Gotcha.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
