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: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/09/14 Message-ID: <51cufk$g4d@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 180486719 references: <01bb8df1$2e19d420$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <4vcac4$gm6@zeus.orl.mmc.com> <01bb8f19$9a89d820$32ee6fce@timhome2> <841797763snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <51ch55$kh5@kanga.accessone.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: AT&T WorldNet Services mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 1.22ATT (Windows; U; 16bit) Date: 1996-09-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: bokr@accessone.com (Bengt Richter) wrote: >mdw@excessus.demon.co.uk (Mark Wooding) wrote: > >>Lawrence Kirby wrote: >>> In article <01bb8f19$9a89d820$32ee6fce@timhome2> >>> tim@airshields.com "Tim Behrendsen" writes: >>> >>> >There is no other view than the procedural view. >>> >>> Some functional language programmers might take issue with that >>> statement. Prologgers may have a thought or two also. > >>I've not come across a computer yet which doesn't work by fetching an >>instruction (or maybe a few at a time), doing them, and then going off >>and fetching some more. I guess you can pretend that this isn't the >>case, and maybe come up with some nice ways of presenting algorithms >>which don't depend on this, but that's not the way things work >>underneath. The One True View is that sequence of instructions; all >>else is an illusion. Maybe it's a helpful illusion, but illusion it is >>nonetheless. > >Au contraire. "The way things work underneath" is not sequential. All >the energized components of a computer exist and work in parallel. >It is only by focusing on certain parts and giving names to their >states and state transitions that you can see the abstract model >involving "that sequence of instructions." > >E.g., to speak of "fetching an instruction" as if were a single event >is to ignore most of the reality "underneath." (Not to mention that >the reality differs among computer architectures). It may be useful >to exclude details that are not relevant to a particular abstract >model, but to think any such model embodies "the One True View" is >severely limiting, IMHO. To constrain a student's thoughts to such >a straight jacket without at some point untying the laces would be >a crime. Some may not be able to escape without help ;-) I would direct such a student to Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" or Fritjof Capra's "The Toa of Physics". From reading these books it will become obvious that the "One True View" is that everything is a "dancing pattern of organic energy". In this very eastern view, "organic" applies to the quantum states of atoms as well as to carbon chemistry. Please note that Tim's statement had to do with teaching algorithms, and I don't think he meant that if GOD exists HE is procedural. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH Knowledge is of two kinds; we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information about it. -- Samual Johnson