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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Christopher R Volpe Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/08/08 Message-ID: <320A488D.34CA@ash.crd.ge.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 172969714 references: <4uaqqg$203@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <01bb84b4$75304ce0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <4ubnhr$714@news1.mnsinc.com> <01bb8536$892ee260$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: GE Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, NY mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m) Date: 1996-08-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tim Behrendsen wrote: > > > My point is someone who has "vaguely" learned five algorithms has > simply memorized them, and learned nothing about the general > principles of how algorithms are created. > > Someone who has "the feel" for two algorithms very strongly are > more likely to be able to extend that knowledge to creating new > algorithms. Just to throw in my $.02 worth, trying to understand an algorithm by writing/reading it in assembler is like trying to debug an algorithm by hooking the CPU up to an oscilloscope. There's a reason that algorithms texts present algorithms in pseudo-code. And the fact that pseudo-code resembles high-level languages more than assembler is not a coincidence. > > I thought you just said it was better to "truly understand one or > > two algorithms"? Make up your mind. General knowledge, or specific > > knowledge? > > Truly understanding two algorithms is better than memorizing five > algorithms, because that is what *gives" the fundamental > understanding. > I would say that truly understanding X algorithms is better than memorizing Y algorithms for all positive values of X and Y. I think the issue here is whether you can get a better grasp of an algorithm while being bogged down in the details of assembler. > > Teach a man an algorithm and some I/O routines to enter the input > > and display the output, then some routines to set up the stack, > > then some routines to initialize data, > > Yes, and wouldn't they truly understand I/O routines and stacks > after that? Sure, if that's the intent. It doesn't help me understand quicksort, though. > > > then some reasons why > > instruction X cannot follow instruction Y, then some reasons why > > a small memory model isn't enough, and you confuse the man for > > life. > > Yes, if your model is the brain-damaged 8086 model. I personally > would use a 68000 to teach on because it's a nice straight-forward > orthogonal instruction set. So, what you're saying is, a simpler expression of an algorithm is better? Hmmm, interesting :-) -- Chris Volpe Phone: (518) 387-7766 GE Corporate R&D Fax: (518) 387-6560 PO Box 8 Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com Schenectady, NY 12301 Web: http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr