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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-08 14:57:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: 8 May 2003 14:57:52 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304300412.3c9f8157@posting.google.com> <98BC68183770643E.43B22CFE5F4D5EFD.5566989BE627964B@lp.airnews.net> <9fa75d42.0305010645.7a5572ed@posting.google.com> <3EB1C603.7788E194@adaworks.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.76.54.22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1052431073 7484 127.0.0.1 (8 May 2003 21:57:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2003 21:57:53 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63350 comp.object:63025 comp.lang.ada:37085 Date: 2003-05-08T21:57:53+00:00 List-Id: "Graham Perkins" wrote in message news:... > "Kevin Cline" wrote in message > news:ba162549.0305020720.4da44159@posting.google.com... > > > One more amateur teaching Ada with no experience using it on > > > projects. There was so much of this going around that no one > > > should be suprised that so many students came away from their > > > Ada classes with a distorted view of the language. > > > > Do you think the situation is better for other languages? It > > certainly isn't for C++. I've interviewed people who taught evening > > classes in C++ and OOP at the university level and they were > > hopelessly confused. > > The text books don't help. So hard to find the > wheat amongst the chaff. That's the instructor's responsibility, but an instructor with minimal knowledge is likely to choose poorly. OTOH, Lippman's _C++ Primer_, and Koenig's & Moo's _Accelerated C++_ have been well-reviewed. The confusion of my interviewees was directly attributable to their poor choice of a textbook. They learned C++ about as well as it was presented in their text book. > I once found a C++ book which doesn't start on classes > until chapter nine! There are a LOT of bad books covering any popular technology. I have discovered that book quality is inversely proportional to the garishness of the cover.