As part of the drive to empty our house of useless crap, I was going 
through some of my old college work last night. Ah, the memories.

I still chuckle at my first few programming assignments. We were 
learning to use Borland Turbo Pascal 5.5 for MS-DOS. The guy teaching us 
only found out two weeks earlier that we was taking the class, so he had 
two weeks to learn Pascal out of a book. Frankly, they should probably 
have just given us that book! (Also, his name was Frank.) He wasn't 
/bad/ at teaching, but it was somewhat baffling to walk into a classroom 
and discover that I know more about the subject than the lecturer does.

The comments on my first assignment indicated that it works well, "and 
you've even added a few extra procedures you weren't asked for" (in 
other words, I factored the problem more thoroughly), "but comments are 
rather sparse". Considering that the entire source code print out was 
literally 3 pages long, there's not a hell of a lot to comment on. No 
non-obvious design decisions or tricky invariants to document. If you 
understand Pascal, the code is pretty much self-explanatory. It's a 
first-year college assignment FFS!

My second assignment is even more amusing. The actual phrase the 
lecturer used was "...the program works, but is a little overly complex 
for mere mortals like me to understand." Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you 
were supposed to be the frigging *expert* that we've all paid good money 
to be taught by! :-P

In fairness, as well as writing the code for the actual assignment, I 
did also write an entire library module that's triple the size of the 
main program, and which allows me to print nicely formatted output. (I 
forget the exact details now. I think it was just number alignment so 
all the decimal places line up.) But I put it in a separate source file 
and made it really easy to read the main program without having any idea 
how the library actually works. And I put comments in the library 
explaining what each procedure does (not that the names didn't make it 
self-evident anyway).

Then again, splitting a program into more than one module was beyond the 
scope of our course. (!) We were never taught the syntax for doing this. 
(It's not like C where you just write more files. In Pascal the main 
program source file has a different structure to library modules. You 
have to declare the public interface, for one thing...)

This experience of knowing what the lecturer is going to teach us before 
he even opens his mouth turned out to be a recurring theme of my path 
through college and university. At the time I just felt smug for being 
better at Pascal than Frank was. By the time I was in my 3rd year at 
university, I was beginning to feel frankly a little outraged that I was 
being charged vast sums of money (tens of thousands of pounds, more 
money than I will ever own) to listen to lecturers who can't speak 
English properly and/or don't have a damned clue WTF they're talking about.

(Not /all/ the lecturers were this bad, of course. But some of them were...)

In one of Frank's other classes, we learned all about binary and 
floating point. The former was of course no longer news to me. Spend 10 
years poking bytes into the control registers of the 6581 (that's the 
MOS Technology Sound Interface Device [S.I.D.] to you) and you learn a 
thing or two about binary, computers, processors, addressing modes, and 
so on. Floating point was all new to me though.

Then there were the lessons on logic gates. (You had to know what they 
are. You weren't required to know what to do with them or why they 
exist.) Again, old news to me, having already spent years playing with 
physical 7400 chips. Taking a harddrive apart was fun though. (And 
probably ****ing expensive, I should think. This is the era when "4 gig 
drives don't grow on trees".)

And then there were the Quants lessons. ("Quantitative Methods") This, 
as best as I can tell from my lecture notes, was simply an orgy of 
mathematics. It's all in the bin now, but I skimmed through pages and 
pages of statistics, polynomials, linear algebra, fractal geometry, 3D 
graphics, Polish reversed lists, chaos theory, cryptography, sound 
synthesis, and God-only knows what else. I should note that only about 
half of this stuff is directly related to anything in the syllabus. The 
other half is just me doodling while bored in class. (Something that 
DJK, our lecturer, seemed to actively encourage.)

I actually found the sheets of paper where I first performed the 
derivation of the binomial theorem from first principles. You cannot 
simply /tell/ me that (A + B)^2 = A^2 + 2AB + B^2. I have to know /why/ 
this is true. And why is it that (A + B)^3 isn't A^3 + 3AB + B^3? There 
must be a pattern. And damnit, I'm going to find it.

This apparently involved drawing a grid:

   +------+---+
   |      |   |
   | A^2  |AB | A
   |      |   |
   +------+---+
   |  AB  |B^2| B
   +------+---+
      A     B

I think you can see where this leads. Next I drew the same thing, but in 
3 dimensions. That took me a bit longer. After that, I wanted 4 
dimensions, but was forced to abandon geometry and simply shift algebra 
by hand. The final expression may be small, but some of the intermediate 
terms are quite large, and it's easy to make mistakes as you repeatedly 
copy and manipulate the terms step by step.

After laboriously tabulating the expansions up to (A + B)^9, it became 
quite obvious what the general pattern was. But what the hell are the 
coefficients? Where do they come from? It took at least another hour of 
shifting algebra around and scrutinising my work before I discovered 
that collecting like terms caused the coefficients to be computed in a 
way exactly matching the definition of Pascal's triangle.

DKJ offhandedly told me that I had discovered "the binomial theorem". 
Consulting the library, I learned that this little puzzle had been 
solved over a century ago. AND FOR NEGATIVE EXPONENTS! >_<

This again is a typical experience in mathematics. Any problem which you 
can imagine has either been solved several hundred years ago, or else is 
impossible to solve. There are no easy unsolved problems. I had the 
feeling of being in the centre of a field of ideas, looking at all the 
familiar, well-known stuff. All the new, unknown stuff would be at the 
far reaches of the field, involving problems so complicated I wouldn't 
even understand the language.

The first time we were in the computer lab, DKJ got us to graph some 
trivial polynomials which supposedly represented various things. (E.g., 
rather than give has a data set representing the company's monthly 
income, he would think up a cubic off the top of his head and get us to 
tabulate and graph that - an easy task for Excel.) I of course was 
bored, and so I ended up graphing my standard incantations. The harmonic 
expansion of various waveforms. The chaotic behaviour of the logistic 
and lambda maps. And so forth. As I recall, it caused quite a stir among 
the chavs I shared a classroom with. For five minutes.

I recall on another day, we had one formula which yields the company's 
income for each month, and another that yields the expenses for each 
month. We were using this to understand the concepts of profit, loss, 
break-even, etc. This was a classroom exercise, so everybody sat 
laboriously tabulating these formulae by hand.

Obviously, I immediately realised that I could directly tabulate the 
company's monthly profit simply by subtracting one formula from the 
other, simplifying the algebra, and then tabulating that. But then DKJ 
wanted us to compute the profit growth rate. I duly tabulated the first 
few months of profit and computed the difference between consecutive 
rows. But I couldn't help feeling that there ought to be a /pattern/ to 
the results.

After about 15 minutes of experimentation, I managed to successfully fit 
a quadratic curve to my data. Literally, I had a formula that produced 
the exact same numbers as the curve I was laboriously tabulating. And 
it's the damnedest thing: the coefficients of this new formula seemed to 
be /related/ to the original formula. Well, it seemed obvious to me that 
such a relationship /should/ exist, but what exactly was its nature?

While everybody else continued the tabulation of growth rate that I had 
long since finished by halving my workload, I picked formulae at random, 
tabulated their growth, and tried to fit curves to them. This is quite a 
lot of work, and I never did figure out exactly what the relationship 
was. At this point, DKJ came over and informed me that I had just 
invented differential calculus, and showed me the general formula for 
the derivative of any polynomial.

I remember being quite suspicious of the perfect constants in the 
expression. "Is that really 3? Or is it 2.986 or something?" No, it's 
*exactly* 3. Needless to say, I went and found a book which explained 
all this in far more detail than the 5 minute conversation I had in 
class, and now I understand /why/ all of these beautiful patterns are so.

While sorting through all this paperwork, there was one assignment I 
felt compelled to keep. The assignment, quite simply, was to write a 
program to "do graphics". Literally, any sort of program you write which 
produces pretty graphics is OK. While DKJ was explaining on the board in 
excruciating detail how to draw a simple rotating square, I was typing 
away at my computer, which I had already got drawing a rotating 
wireframe 3D cube.

It was around this time I was playing with complex numbers. For years 
I'd been baffled by the descriptions telling me that the Mandelbrot 
formula is z := z^2 + c, but the formula is /also/ x := x^2 - y^2 + a, y 
:= 2xy + b. Clearly z = x + yi and c = a + bi. But how do you get from 
one formula to the other? It made no sense, and nothing anywhere 
explained it.

One fateful day, I tried applying the binomial theorem to (x + yi)^2 + 
(a + bi). The result is obviously x^2 - 2xyi + y^2i^2 + a + bi. If you 
replace i^2 with -1 (for that is its defined value), you get x^2 - 2xyi 
- y^2 + a + bi. And if you gather all the terms containing i in one 
group and all the others in another, you get x^2 - y^2 + a and 2xyi + 
bi. Divide the latter through i and its 2xy + b.

Suddenly, it clicked. (No, not my spine!) I spent the rest of the day 
deriving complex arithmetic from first principles. Perhaps the single 
most significant moment was in class the next day. I wrote out the 
Taylor series for exp(yi). Replacing i^2 with -1, I discovered that all 
the terms now alternate between negative and positive. And between real 
and imaginary. And collecting all the reals and all the imaginaries, I 
was shocked to find myself looking at the Taylor series for the sine and 
cosine functions.

At which point DKJ informed be that Euler figured that out almost 300 
years ago. Damnit! >_<

Following our lecture on Polish reversed lists, I wrote a small Pascal 
interpreter. It takes a String containing a Polish reversed list, and 
executes it. You can only include purely real constants and the variable 
names "A", "B", "C", "D" and "Z". The values of these variables are 
passed as arguments to the interpreter function. The interpreter 
executes the expression, and returns the result. It even correctly 
handles complex exponents. (Although they would have to be variables.)

Using this, I added to my graphics assignment a fairly large collection 
of fractal types. I don't think I ever got as far as implementing 
Dijkstra's shunting algorithm (to turn normal algebra into Polish 
reversed lists). But I implemented the usual Mandelbrot and Julia 
fractals, with multiple colouring options (escape time, Z-magnitude, 
epsilon cross, binary decomposition, etc.) And also several other 
fractal types; cubic Mandelbrot, lambda, logistic, lambda-exp and 
lambda-sin.

I read in a book about Floyd-Steinberg error distribution dithering. Now 
remember, we're talking about the era where one of my assignments 
actually asked me about the differences between MGA, CGA and EGA. (For 
you youngsters: That's what we had *before* VGA.) We all did our 
graphics work in VGA mode. So, 16 hard-coded colours available. So I 
went ahead and wrote an FS dithering algorithm, and then adapted my 
Mandelbrot renderer to generate images in 24-bit colour and then dither 
them into 4-bit colour. The results at 640x480 were... well, grainy. 
(Plus I think I had a bug somewhere. The algorithm never worked 
/exactly/ right.) But it was still kinda neat.

I actually /sold/ the code for the Mandelbrot fractal to Graham. Not for 
very much money. And, actually, I didn't give him any code. I just sat 
next to him and told him what steps had to happen, and he coded it. I 
can still remember the conversation. "Now run that loop for every 
pixel." "Wow, for EVERY PIXEL?" "Yep. Now you know why it's so slow!" 
(Mine of course did fancy tracing operations to speed it up...)

My rotating cube went on to acquire hidden line removal. *ahem* OK, 
back-face cull. Which took some considerable research and discussions 
with DKJ to get right. Finally I discovered that it wasn't working 
because it /actually matters/ what order you list the coordinates in. 
O_O Once I fixed that, it worked much better. I then went on to add 
surface illumination calculations, using a simple point source and Phong 
lighting. (Each surface is one flat colour.) With only 4 shades of grey 
to play with, it didn't look so hot. But it was quite neat animated.

I vaguely recall that I did implement something with /real/ hidden line 
removal, but I don't know if it made it into my assignment. I'll have to 
read the sources.


animated spirals and so forth. Needless to say, I got a Distinction for 
that. (The highest mark possible.)

It still makes me chuckle that I enrolled for a computing diploma and I 
spent two terms learning how double-entry accounting works. I've got 
Sage printouts and everything. (That's Sage for MS-DOS, mind you.) I 
still remember the login password. It was "letmein".

Then there's heaps of stuff about the relative merits of Ethernet verses 
Token Ring verses something else. As far as I can tell, that's a format 
war that has long since been won my Ethernet. Does *anybody* still use 
token ring? How about ATM, is that still used?

(Come to think of it, *all* of the networking stuff at college was done 
by Novel Netware. Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...)

There was one assignment called "computers in society". I didn't 
actually read the assignment, but the lecturer's comments were amusing. 
"A wonderful, almost poetic report. I would be delighted to receive 
writing of this calibre in my professional life." He then goes on to 
offhandedly mention that I didn't actually cover all of the required 
aspects. And yet, I got a Distinction? LOL!

I briefly flicked through the report I wrote. Obviously produced with MS 
Word 6. One sentence has been highlighted and the guy wrote next to it 
"beautiful!" The sentence reads:

   "The computer is to information as the power loom is to fabric."

Aside from that, the report isn't well written at all. The tone is very, 
very informal. Like, if you imagine being given a topic, and just 
monologuing about it to your friend off the top of your head, 
videotaping that, and then rearranging the sentences into a more 
coherent order with a word processor... that's what I wrote. 
Distinction. Heh, well I guess it *is* only college...

Also: If you think my spelling is bad *now*, you have literally no idea 
how abysmal it used to be! (E.g., I can spell "abysmal" now. :-P ) And 
that was when I was a teenager, obviously.

Some of the lecturer's comments weren't so friendly. (Actually, some of 
them weren't legible at all. That has to be some kind of fail, right 
there!) Deanna wrote something about "Task A shows technical brilliance, 
however task B is still not acceptable, even on this second attempt, and 
even though I told you which research sources to use. This just isn't 
good enough Andrew. You simply must improve in this area."

Oh? Oh really? You think so? Do ya? Yeah? Well let's see how you like my 
SHREDDER!!! Muhuhuhuh!!! Take THAT, Selby! Yeah, you like that?! Not so 
smug *now*, are we? Now that your acidic little smartypants voice has 
been minced into a thousand tiny pieces. EAT METAL!!! >:-]

Ahhh. To quote H. Granger, "that felt good".

In summary, all the assignments to do with programming computers or 
solving equations gave me exemplary marks. Everything else brought me 
dismal failure. A pattern that was to be repeated at university, come to 
think of it. Well I guess that's tomorrow's tidying task.

I'm particularly proud of the grade I got for my second programming 
module at uni. I got a D for that. (On an A - F scale.)

You see, due to the faculty secretly moving the notice board and not 
bothering to tell me about it, I missed all of my exams that term. Every 
single one of them. And that meant I failed all my modules and had to 
retake them.

Well, all except one. You see, for my programming module, my coursework 
grades were *so* damned awesome that I actually PASSED THE MODULE 
OUTRIGHT WITHOUT EVEN TAKING THE EXAM. And not only did I pass, I got a 
D. Not an F. Not an E. But a D. Without even sitting the exam. I'm *that 
good*, bitch! ;-)

And then there was that database class. The one where Ian says "There 
are various levels of normalisation. I mean, you've got 2NF, 3NF, 4NF 
and even higher ones. But generally, you only really need to worry about 
Boyce-Codd normal form, which says, ANDREW..."

I stand up from my seat in the front row and enunciate "...every 
determinate must be a candidate key..."

"...thank you Andrew. Now as you can see[...]"

That was a feel-good moment. When even the lecturers know you're a 
damned walking encyclopaedia. ;-)

...and now I'm feeling all nostalgic about the long-lost days when I 
could just sit in a corner reading about Gaussian elimination or 
something while the lecturer blathers on about the role of middle 
management or whatever. I could do crazy math stuff, and people would be 
*impressed* and stuff. My college notes are literally a fermenting sea 
of equations. Serious work mixed up with doodles and advanced math. I 
have nobody to impress anymore. :'{

(Although... I wonder how much of the praise I received was actually 
justified. Especially at college, when I was in a class full of chavs 
who went out and got drunk *every day*. They'd be hung over for the 
morning classes, and mildly drunk for the afternoon ones. Is it any 
wonder the lecturers though I was brilliant?)



Go on, admit it. You thought this was going to be about SRAM vs DRAM, 
didn't you? :-P

Post a reply to this message

>
> Then there's heaps of stuff about the relative merits of Ethernet verses
> Token Ring verses something else. As far as I can tell, that's a format
> war that has long since been won my Ethernet. Does *anybody* still use
> token ring? How about ATM, is that still used?
>

In most large entreprise that has an IBM mainframe sysplex or two, there 
will be some token-ring left there, for some legacy "don't touch it, the 
last guy who knew how that worked retired years ago, and quite frankly, 
we're not sure anyone still uses it, but we don't want to take chances" 
application.

> (Come to think of it, *all* of the networking stuff at college was done
> by Novel Netware. Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...)

They're still around.

> You see, due to the faculty secretly moving the notice board and not
> bothering to tell me about it, I missed all of my exams that term. Every
> single one of them. And that meant I failed all my modules and had to
> retake them.

After a while, most rational human beings would have asked other 
students "Hey, when's our first exam?", or upon hearing "That last exam, 
sure was hard" would have retorted "Exam? what exam?".  You can't just 
blame the tricksy hobbitses, you have to take some of it.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>>
>> Then there's heaps of stuff about the relative merits of Ethernet verses
>> Token Ring verses something else. As far as I can tell, that's a format
>> war that has long since been won my Ethernet. Does *anybody* still use
>> token ring? How about ATM, is that still used?
>>
>
> In most large entreprise that has an IBM mainframe sysplex or two, there
> will be some token-ring left there, for some legacy "don't touch it, the
> last guy who knew how that worked retired years ago, and quite frankly,
> we're not sure anyone still uses it, but we don't want to take chances"
> application.

Forgot to add:

And ATM is the transport underneath DSL and DOCSIS.  So most home or 
small office high speed Internet connections are using ATM.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> Does *anybody* still use token ring?
>
> In most large entreprise that has an IBM mainframe sysplex or two, there
> will be some token-ring left there, for some legacy application.

Wouldn't surprise me. But I'm correct in saying that nobody uses it for 
new deployments?

>> (Come to think of it, *all* of the networking stuff at college was done
>> by Novel Netware. Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...)
>
> They're still around.

Novel is clearly still around. I meant Netware.

>> You see, due to the faculty secretly moving the notice board and not
>> bothering to tell me about it, I missed all of my exams that term. Every
>> single one of them. And that meant I failed all my modules and had to
>> retake them.
>
> After a while, most rational human beings would have asked other
> students "Hey, when's our first exam?", or upon hearing "That last exam,
> sure was hard" would have retorted "Exam? what exam?". You can't just
> blame the tricksy hobbitses, you have to take some of it.

"That last exam sure was hard" is how I found out that I'd missed the 
last one.

Other than that, I don't recall actually *seeing* any of my classmates 
during this period. Not that I knew most of their names anyway...

Still, somehow everybody else knew that our notice board had moved 400 
yards along the corridor. I wonder how they found out?

(My mum screamed at me "you pass that noticeboard every single day!" To 
which I responded "I pass about 30 noticeboards every single day. None 
of them related to my course.")

Post a reply to this message

On 8/19/2011 5:00, Invisible wrote:
> Does *anybody* still use token ring?

Anywhere the benefits of token ring outweigh the costs of using a less 
common networking technology, yes. Primarily where you need a fixed upper 
limit on how long a packet takes to be delivered, such as in many forms of 
industrial processing.

 > How about ATM, is that still used?

It's used quite a lot internally to the phone company. You're probably using 
it right now.

> Aside from that, the report isn't well written at all. The tone is very,
> very informal. Like, if you imagine being given a topic, and just
> monologuing about it to your friend off the top of your head,

I'm not sure I need to *imagine* that as such...

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> As part of the drive to empty our house of useless crap, I was going
> through some of my old college work last night. Ah, the memories.
>
> ...but it was somewhat baffling to walk into a classroom
> and discover that I know more about the subject than the lecturer does.
Oh c'mon now!  Anyone who can think his way out of a wet paper bag has had this
experience repeatedly. We're just socially trained not to say so.

> ..."but comments are rather sparse". ...there's not a hell of a
> lot to comment on.
>
Been there squared. Sadly, MANY programming classes are taught by folks who
can't follow more than a few lines of simple code without a continuous running
series of comments telling them what they're reading.  Also, the catechism of

who want to be able to hire low-wage nitwits to make any code change they might
ever want.  One particularly irritating instructor actually FORBADE me to bring

grudge, however.  After my final grade was securely recorded, I gave him a very
nice going away present, a gift-wrapped box of Constant Comment tea.  ;-)

> And then there were the Quants lessons. ("Quantitative Methods") This,
> as best as I can tell from my lecture notes, was simply an orgy of
> mathematics. ...
Well, we can never have too many of those, can we?  I'm sure nearly all of us
have seen this, but here goes anyway:
http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~pjbk/humour/polynomial.html

> You cannot
> simply /tell/ me that (A + B)^2 = A^2 + 2AB + B^2. I have to know /why/
> this is true. ...
Bravo. I'm pretty sure that this attiude is a necessary condition for any
meaningful application of the term "sentient".

> ...DKJ came over and informed me that I had just
> invented differential calculus, and showed me the general formula for
> the derivative of any polynomial.
It's probably a very good thing that you delved into the foundations BEFORE
being exposed to Leibniz notation, which (IMHO) strongly tends to obscure rather
than illuminate underlying principles. (But, hey, /productivity/ is the ONLY
truly important reason for mathematics, right?)

> It still makes me chuckle that I enrolled for a computing diploma and I
> spent two terms learning how double-entry accounting works.
Historically, there are really only two significant primary sources on the true
nature of double-entry accounting. I'm referring to Houdini and Machiavelli, of
course.

>I have nobody to impress anymore. :'{
Why the ":'{" ?... Seriously.  Do you not grasp that THIS is truly ultimate
victory?

> (Although... I wonder how much of the praise I received was actually
> justified. ...
In a very real sense, the answer is "none" for you, me and all of our kind. I
really do understand just how difficult it can be to break our addiction to
praise, but unless we pull that particularly nasty little monkey off our backs
and stomp on it, they'll always own us.

> Go on, admit it. You thought this was going to be about SRAM vs DRAM,
> didn't you? :-P
Not for one second... I considered the source,  ;-)


Best Regards, /*  Closing   */
Mike C.       /*  Signature */

Post a reply to this message

On 19/08/2011 04:14 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/19/2011 5:00, Invisible wrote:
>> Does *anybody* still use token ring?
>
> Anywhere the benefits of token ring outweigh the costs of using a less
> common networking technology, yes. Primarily where you need a fixed
> upper limit on how long a packet takes to be delivered, such as in many
> forms of industrial processing.

Wouldn't you just use a dedicated network with no other traffic on it?

Also, wasn't the last token ring technology to be released 10mbit/sec or 
something? That's a tad slow... (Then again, industrial control. How 
much bandwidth can it possibly need?)

>> How about ATM, is that still used?
>
> It's used quite a lot internally to the phone company. You're probably
> using it right now.

OK. So exchange to exchange links and stuff?

>> Aside from that, the report isn't well written at all. The tone is very,
>> very informal. Like, if you imagine being given a topic, and just
>> monologuing about it to your friend off the top of your head,
>
> I'm not sure I need to *imagine* that as such...

Nice to know I've *always* sucked at report writing. :-P

Post a reply to this message

>> ...but it was somewhat baffling to walk into a classroom
>> and discover that I know more about the subject than the lecturer does.

> Oh c'mon now!  Anyone who can think his way out of a wet paper bag has had this
> experience repeatedly. We're just socially trained not to say so.

What, that the person being paid to teach you something knows less about 
it than you already do?

Damn, if my driving instructor knew less about driving than me, I'd be 
pretty concerned!

>> ..."but comments are rather sparse". ...there's not a hell of a
>> lot to comment on.
>
> Been there squared. Sadly, MANY programming classes are taught by folks who
> can't follow more than a few lines of simple code without a continuous running
> series of comments telling them what they're reading.  Also, the catechism of

> who want to be able to hire low-wage nitwits to make any code change they might
> ever want.

In some sense, they're trying to teach you good programming technique 
and practises, and part of that is documenting what you're doing.

On the other hand, the Jackson's Structured Drawings, flow charts, 
extensive comments, etc. are all really, really overkill for any sort of 
programming project that you could realistically expect novice 
programmers to pull off in a month. The task has to be simple enough 
that it can be implemented in the time allotted; that kind of dooms it 
to be simple enough to not really need comments, elaborate design 
methodologies, nor any of the other lofty things they're trying to teach us.

So in a sense, they're trying to teach us to document our work, and I 
didn't. On the other hand, it didn't really *need* it.

A similar thing could be said of my programming assignment. In a sense, 
I did way, way more work than actually necessary, and made the program 
quite a bit more complicated than it could have been. On the other 
hand... GIVE ME A BREAK! Go learn how to write programs, and THEN you 
can lecture me about how I'm coding stuff wrong. :-P

>> And then there were the Quants lessons. ("Quantitative Methods") This,
>> as best as I can tell from my lecture notes, was simply an orgy of
>> mathematics. ...

> Well, we can never have too many of those, can we?

I never get this any more. :-(

>> You cannot
>> simply /tell/ me that (A + B)^2 = A^2 + 2AB + B^2. I have to know /why/
>> this is true. ...

> Bravo. I'm pretty sure that this attiude is a necessary condition for any
> meaningful application of the term "sentient".

Not one other person in the whole class cared in the slightest.

Then again, they all spent 25 minutes mindlessly computing like human 
calculators, so maybe "sentient" is stretching it. *I* learned 
something. :-P (Although not the thing on the syllabus...)

>> ...DKJ came over and informed me that I had just
>> invented differential calculus, and showed me the general formula for
>> the derivative of any polynomial.

> It's probably a very good thing that you delved into the foundations BEFORE
> being exposed to Leibniz notation, which (IMHO) strongly tends to obscure rather
> than illuminate underlying principles. (But, hey, /productivity/ is the ONLY
> truly important reason for mathematics, right?)

I borrowed my dad's calculus book. It explained it all from first 
principles, in really very clear language.

(I'd actually read the book once already, but utterly failed to 
comprehend what the hell it was talking about. I suppose having seen a 
practical application, it made more sense...)

>> I have nobody to impress anymore. :'{

> Why the ":'{" ?... Seriously.  Do you not grasp that THIS is truly ultimate
> victory?

How do you work that one out?

> I really do understand just how difficult it can be to break our addiction to
> praise, but unless we pull that particularly nasty little monkey off our backs
> and stomp on it, they'll always own us.

Nobody likes people who constantly seek attention. On the other hand, 
nobody wants to spend their entire life doing stuff and never getting 
any recognition at all...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:15:00 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

>> (Come to think of it, *all* of the networking stuff at college was done
>> by Novel Netware. Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...)
> 
> They're still around.

Well, Novell (with two l's) is. ;)

They were just acquired by Attachmate (there's a name *I* hadn't heard in 
a while until they made the offer back in 2010).  But Andy should have 
heard the name Novell, certainly, because that's where I worked until 
May, and I know I mentioned it in here on more than one occasion.

:)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/19/2011 8:16, Invisible wrote:
> OK. So exchange to exchange links and stuff?

That, carrying text messages sometimes, control backplane, DOCSIS, DSL, etc 
etc etc. Anything where high-speed packet switching with connection-oriented 
service makes more sense. Any place where the actual physical connections 
aren't changing very fast, an underlying connection-oriented protocol is not 
uncommon and usually much more robust, managable, and efficient.  *Then* you 
layer IP on top, in order to give you a layer of virtual switching. (And 
indeed, network switches go through a lot of effort to try to turn IP 
networks into connection-oriented networks, with stuff like caching of 
recently seen IP addresses, path MTU protocols, etc.

I.e., ATM is used over fiber (usually in turn over SONET) wherever in *your* 
house you are using ethernet.

Honestly, IP is a pretty sucky and limited technology, except for its 
flexibility. It's both inefficient in transmission and extremely difficult 
to manage well. You couldn't possibly use it internal to the phone company 
for routing or addressing. (For example, one area code (aka "city code") in 
the USA supports more phone numbers than all of IPv4.) But it's everywhere, 
for the same reason that C is everywhere: It's so limited you can layer it 
on top of pretty much any underlying transport.

For example, one of my colleagues was making fun of ISO's CMIP for being 
connection-oriented, because having trouble getting a connection is one of 
the most common reasons you'd use SNMP. I said "they just dedicate a 
physical connection to it. The smallest bundle going into any switch has 900 
physical pairs, and usually closer to hundreds of thousands." At this point, 
the student was enlightened.

>>> Aside from that, the report isn't well written at all. The tone is very,
>>> very informal. Like, if you imagine being given a topic, and just
>>> monologuing about it to your friend off the top of your head,
>>
>> I'm not sure I need to *imagine* that as such...
>
> Nice to know I've *always* sucked at report writing. :-P

Wrong tense. ;-) Read the last sentence I quoted, then start over on your 
message again. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message