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: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: bokr@accessone.com (Bengt Richter) Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/08/31 Message-ID: <5085r7$ra7@kanga.accessone.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177566686 references: <01bb846d$c6c01780$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <840288278snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <01bb8c89$9023e3e0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <4vgs4p$evl@news.accessone.com> <4vhtrd$8cq@news.ccit.arizona.edu> organization: - newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: frank@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning) wrote: >In article <4vgs4p$evl@news.accessone.com> bokr@accessone.com (Bengt >Richter) writes: >> What if computers are totally irrelevant? >When you give students a programming assignment, are the students >required to run the program on actual, physical, real-life computers? >If so, that presents certain...ah...practical problems First, I agree with you. But the topic I was trying to comment on was the efficacy of assembler code as a vehicle for getting an understanding of an algorithm. And I was trying to point out that an algorithm may be fundamentally abstract, making computers *essentially* irrelevant. That is not to say that the practical ability to use computers is irrelevant to a programming assignment involving the algorithm, nor is it to say that such an assignment could not help a student understand the algorithm. I felt the value of assembler level concerns was being evangelized to such an extent that I counter-reacted. If I had encountered my own post out of context, emphasizing the abstract, I would probably have felt the urge to point out that I wouldn't want to do without a CPU/machine language view in my debugger, as things stand now. [...] >And if the students know only abstract theory, how are professors going >to explore new theories if the students are incapable of running >experiments, as the students most certainly will be if they don't know >the details of how the hardware actually works? There are countless ways >an experiment can go wrong or give misleading results. It's difficult to >prevent those problems without a thorough understanding of hardware >details. Certainly I don't think students should know only abstract theory, even if they're math majors. But I think you could play with algorithms in Scheme and not have to worry too much about how the hardware works. I would think a central goal in choosing or constructing an experimental environment would be to eliminate extraneous concerns. Of course what's extraneous for some is central to others. There can be bugs in Scheme interpreters or compilers, but those are presumably in a different domain from the domain of the algorithm. Should driving school students be able to fix the transmission if that breaks during a lesson? It's a worthy subject, but out of scope. Regards, Bengt Richter BTW, did I detect a hint of exclusivity in "...professors going to explore new theories...?" I think many students will quickly outrun their coaches when allowed on the same track :-)