From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,4cf070091283b555 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public From: "Tim Behrendsen" Subject: Re: What's the best language to learn? [was Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/08/18 Message-ID: <01bb8d2c$e9f44d80$32ee6fce@timhome2>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 175288793 references: <4ut1sv$ngv@solutions.solon.com> <4uv3ef$do2@zeus.orl.mmc.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 organization: A-SIS mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer Date: 1996-08-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Gilbert wrote in article <4uv3ef$do2@zeus.orl.mmc.com>... > In article <4ut1sv$ngv@solutions.solon.com>, seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) writes: > > > > I don't really think we are going to convince each other. I believe that > > the "fundemental procedural nature of the computer" may not be a permanent > > thing. I'd rather teach them to think in the general terms, and see that > > procedural nature as just one more current limitation, like computers which > > have only 2 MB of RAM. This will better prepare them for techniques that > > depend on *not* thinking of the computer as procedural. > > I certainly agree with this. When I was first learning to program, computer > time was extremely valuable, and we were taught to use great care when > writing a program to insure that it was as correct as possible to avoid > having to *waste* computer time having the compiler find all of your syntax > errors. In fact, I even had one professor that deducted points on your > programming assignments for each additional compilation you required past > the first two. This sort of view has certainly changed today, since > computer time is usually a lot cheaper than a programmers time. > > Another thing I'm seeing is the greater use of field programmable gate arrays > (FPGA's) in embedded systems. As the capability and density of FPGA's continues > to increase, it allows more and more flexibility to program (?) functionallity > into the FPGA. I suspect in a few years we will be talking "virtual hardware", > with new and different programming methods, and subsequently new languages, > that will be developed and learned. Certainly there will be new methods, and new architectures, but computers will *always* be procedural. What is a computer, except an engine that does data transformations over time? Even our brains work this way in a simplified sense; pattern transformations from sensory input patterns to muscular output patterns. Just because you start out by teaching someone a linear point of view as a foundation doesn't preclude them from understanding more complex transformation models. -- Tim Behrendsen (tim@airshields.com)