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=2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,d24e07f660698f1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d24e07f660698f1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,d24e07f660698f1 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d24e07f660698f1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: walth@netcom.com (Walt Howard) Subject: Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it? Date: 1997/07/17 Message-ID: <33cfa566.539361@news.deltanet.com> X-Deja-AN: 257465525 References: <33C61545.167EB0E7@tower.com> Organization: Delta Internet Services, Inc. Reply-To: walth@netcom.com Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:29:50 -0800, mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) wrote: >In article <33C61545.167EB0E7@tower.com>, "ivory@tower.com" > wrote: > >>My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see >>that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for >>the first 2-3 years. He's using this as a black mark against the >>school. The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real' >>language that has real-life value on the job market. >> >>He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat >>agree. I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of >>ads for them in the classifieds. Note: I'm not debating whether or >>not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern. The concern >>is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time >>well spent. >> >>So, what's the (reality based) counter argument? > >Your friend's son doesn't know what he is talking about. > >I, a proud Ada programmer, fully endorse teaching Eiffel as a first >language as A Good Thing. > >For a cogent discussion of this issue, read Teaching the Method, chapter 29 >of Object-Oriented Software Construction (2nd ed), by Bertrand Meyer. > >The argument that the Eiffel has no "real-life value on the job market" is >completely specious. You go to college to LEARN HOW TO THINK, not to learn >programming language syntax. If you want that, why now just save all your >money and go to a trade school? I think most people should, even though it's looked down upon, the people who go to trade school aren't working in McDonalds like the programmers who learned skills the job market didn't want. Most of my programming jobs, though they requiring loads of work, were quite enjoyable, emotionally rewarding and financially excellent. You can't beat working with a team of bright people where every day you learn. Where new and exciting approaches to problems come up every day, things that you would never have thought of, even though you yourself have some great ideas. Just do what it takes to get that first programming job. My mother teaches art history at Cal Tech. Cal Tech wants to make sure all the nerds get a little experience with the humanities. I guess they want them thinking twice when they go to work on H-Bomb projects. She says her classes are almost entirely oriental/asian. The Americans aren't going in for the "practical skills" anymore. Someone is telling them that "History" or "Poetry" is what they should learn. I think it's pathetic. >Or just pick up a programming book at the >corner bookstore? Hey, Learn C in 14 Days! At a rough guess, 95% of the American programmers I know (microcomputer environment) did just that. They did NOT major or minor in any field related to computers in college. They were self taught. Virtually ALL of the foreign (Russian, Chinese and Indian) programmers were formally educated in computers (probably immigration only lets in people with formal educations). However I've seen no real qualitative difference between them. Both classes (foreign and domestic) programmers were roughly equal in skill. That's because, a month on a REAL programming job is worth a year in school so that is where the REAL learning takes place. >If it were that simple, everybody would be doing it. It's the other way around. Self teaching requires self-motivation which is a lot harder than mindlessly wandering though school because your parents wanted you to. If a person wants to learn, they can do so by themselves. They may not have the paper to prove it, but that doesn't mean they don't know it. In the end, it boils down to their own desire to learn anyway, no matter which way they do that learning. People think that "taking a class" is some magical way to learn, like the knowledge is going to pour out of the teacher into them. It's completely false. Anyone can read books on a particular subject and learn as much as having someone tell them what's in the book! Now, I'm not talking about "Lab", where you get practical experience. That you need but you don't have to get it in school. You can get a grunt programming job and you'll learn from the other programmers. >Try to convince this person to read Meyer's book. Guys that just want to >learn a "real" programming language, or would rather spend their time >programming instead of engineering, shouldn't be programming at all. > That's a totally wrong statement. The computer revolution was caused by the "opening up" of the computer field to ANYONE who had an interest, no matter what that interest was. Cheap computers and cheap compilers enabled EVERYONE to have a shot at exercising their talent. By process of natural selection the talented, hard working ones rose to the top irrespective of their education or initial motivations. You should see the source code on some of the most successful applications. It would make OOP programmers vomit it's so hack, yet, it didn't require "clean" design or anything to be successful. ( I get sick to my stomach sometimes because I spend so much effort making my designs and code simple, understandable and object oriented but other people who don't, still do ok). A hell of a lot of people got interested in computers just for the fun of programming. The activity itself, coding, compiling and debugging is loads of fun for some of us. I think most people are going to college expecting to "get an education" so they can survive later in the real world. If you tell them up front they are coming in to "learn how to think", I think many would bail right then and there. While microcomputers were taking over the "REAL" world from 1976 to 1885, colleges were still teaching mainframe stuff. Thus, a whole army of self-taught programmers took over because colleges were NOT keeping up with what was really relevant. Just remember Bill Gates was a college drop-out. Grab the employment section of your newspaper. See what employers are asking for. They are asking for LANGUAGE knowledge the vast majority and application domain experience/knowledge. I have yet to see an employment ad that asked for knowledge on "how to think". "Wanted, a programmer who knows how to think. No experience necessary. No knowledge of computer languages necessary. Up to 120,000 for right applicant plus benefits". I know a "C programmer" who didn't even know what main() was, who was making 80,000/yr. You don't believe me? I'll tell you why, later in this post. You don't have to be a good software engineer to make a lot of money as a programmer. Engineering can come later. If companies are stupid enough to hire people based on language knowledge, then you should take advantage of that. If a job reaches the employment ad stage, the company is really desperate, so you know those skills are in high demand. You aren't going to be happy knowing Eiffel and flipping burgers at Jack in the Box. Learn to support yourself first, then retire at 40 and learn how to think in your copious free time. Walt Howard Oh yeah, the programmer who didn't know what main() was? He was a Windows GUI programmer, who didn't need main, ever.