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: grs@liyorkrd.li.co.uk (George)
Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn
 C or Pascal?]
Date: 1996/09/17
Message-ID: <51knkn$j61@dub-news-svc-8.compuserve.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 181017692
references: <01bb8df1$2e19d420$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com>
 <515o3b$d7h@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <01bb9fe6$7299d800$87ee6fce@timpent.a-sis.com>
organization: CompuServe Incorporated
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Tim Behrendsen" <tim@airshields.com> wrote:

> You prove my point that programmers take the procedural nature
> of the computer as so obvious as to be beneath discussion, but
> it's not.  I cannot stress this enough: THIS MUST BE LEARNED BY
> STUDENTS.  This is the primary, fundamental axiom of computers.

> How many questions do we get in this newsgroup where a student
> simply didn't follow the flow of the program to see what happens?
> This is so obvious to you and I that we don't think about it,
> but *they didn't*!  Because they have only a vague feeling of
> flow, and are still looking at the program as a kind of
> weird combination of a solid object and something with a flow
> of time.


Just to get away from the pointless symantic argument; are your really
suggesting that students don't understand something this basic.
If this is the effect of teaching OOA/OOP and similar mumbo jumbo,
then maybe it's time we got back to BASICs; no way they could they
fail to understand. 

What do they actually think happens inside a computer *magic*????


> Take recursion.  How can you not understand recursion if you
> understand in your soul that computers execute a flow of
> instructions?  You can't, and that's the point.  Understanding
> the time axis is the key.

They should never have been allowed to get this far without realizing
that.

> -- Tim Behrendsen (tim@a-sis.com)

G.