Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?]

[rgilbert@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Bob Gilbert)]

In article <Dvro5K.MKo@most.fw.hac.com>, smosha@most.fw.hac.com (Stephen M O'Shaughnessy) writes:
> In article <4u7fol$26s@zeus.orl.mmc.com>, rgilbert@unconfigured.xvnews.domain says...
> >
> >Why can't we learn both at the same time?  
> >
> >When it came to learning computer science I think I tended to learn
> >both at the same time.  I took basic EE courses and learned about
> >operating transistors in saturation, how to build flip-flop circuits,
> >and how to implement logic using these circuits, and finally how to
> >design a computer architecture using these circuits (including micro-
> >code design).  At the same time I was learning PL/I programming, how
> >to write bubble sorts, learning about the merits of structured 
> >programming, top-down design methods, various data structures, data 
> >base design, discrete mathmatics, ect.  This was overlapped and 
> >followed with learning assembly, state machine theory, Turing machines,
> >general compiler (language) theory, and so forth.  Somewhere in my 
> >second senior year it all started to come together and make sense, 
> >not necessarily with a sudden turning on of the light of understanding,
> >but a gradual turning up of the dimmer switch.
> >
> That must have been one hell of a lecture.  By *same time* I meant SAME TIME.  Some
> of your above mentioned topics must have been learned, and mastered, before the
> others. 

As I reflect back on the required course work, is seems that there were
probably as many as three distinct threads to be pursued in parallel 
(looking at the upper-level courses).  One started from the hardware 
(EE) viewpoint and worked it's way up (transistors, flip-flops, logic
circuits, computer architecture, micro-code, assembly), one started at 
a high (more abstract) level and worked down (PL/I programming, structured
design, data structures, data base design, etc.), and one started somewhere
in the middle and worked out (assembly, Turing machines, compiler design,
language theory, etc..  The point is, the curriculum was providing both 
top down and bottom up (and maybe some other, shotgun?) approaches to 
teaching the entire subject matter.  Certainly some courses required that
certain prerequisites be met, but my definition of "same time" is that I was 
taking introductory PL/I programming courses in the same semester that I
was taking digital design courses, the following semester might include 
courses in computer architecture concurrent with a data structures class,
and so on.  In one path you learned about roots, bark, and leaves, and these
came together to make up trees, and you can then take a bunch of trees and 
make a forest.  The other path started out teaching you about the forest 
and showed that it was made up of a bunch of trees.....  Both paths were
pursued in parallel.
 
> Care to comment on what you mean by second senior year?

It could be that there are those of us whose dedication to the pursuit of
higher learning and obtaining a professional degree is not all that great
(or at least wasn't when we were young and easily distracted) or we lacked
the necessary motivation to complete a degree program in the usual time 
frame, or.....  we unwittingly pursued other degrees, like mechanical 
engineering, before discovering our preference for computer science and 
thus spent extra time taking additional course work not required for a 
computer science degree.  I'm not telling which, if either, it is :-) .

-Bob