For what it's worth, I applaud your process. I'm assuming it doesn't get in the way of 'real progress' (however that may be defined at your company), but it seems to be a nice mix of theory and practice. If only more companies cared about performance on low-end hardware...
The case presented there is ridiculously going to the other extreme, but the principle is sound. A few rare memory leaks aren't a problem, but using a bubble sort on a million-item list is.
I don't remember the source of that quote, but it was in relation to a company spending money (far more than $50) to reduce the memory use of their program. Sure, there's a lot of talk in computer science curricula about using efficient algorithms, but from what I've seen and heard, companies almost always respond to performance problems by buying bigger and better hardware. If software weren't grossly inefficient, how would that affect data centers? Less power consumption, cheaper hardware, and more "bang for your buck", so to speak.
Eventually, this whole debate becomes moot, as data centers can get more income from the hardware, thus still provide the uptime, redundancy, and features, without the need to cut costs. Once those basic needs are out of the way, there's room for expansion into other less-than-critical offerings, and finally, innovation in areas other than uptime.
Windows Server's ability to hypervise Linux is actually a feature, since many enterprises are mixed environments.
Yes, it makes Linux better. This isn't in doubt. The slight hit to Microsoft comes from a lost sale of Windows for a guest OS, but it's countered by a customer (who, hypothetically, MUST have a perfect Linux guest) being able to use Windows as a hypervisor.
When I say "entire program", I'm referring to the entirety of what Microsoft made to make Linux work better as a guest (which I'm assuming is everything released in these past few days)
As for the other projects, Microsoft does have a obvious stake in both PHP (improving IIS's performance and market) and Mono (improving the same for C# and.NET). Apache's license, unlike the GPL, allows them to use any technology in their own software. Funding Apache becomes a gamble on the foundation producing something useful in the future.
I have yet to see a contribution from Microsoft that didn't appear selfish. That includes these recent events. I realize that being a corporation they're only concerned with their bottom line, but it seems to me that having fewer unhappy potential customers would lead to higher profits.
Perhaps I'm just ignorant, and hatred is a new business strategy.
They're required by law to give it away. That's what this entire news item is about. They aren't the ones who 'chose' the GPL. They used GPL code first, so their additions must be GPL, as well. The only other choice is to write the whole thing from scratch.
As for the almost-worthless legacy code, that's exactly my point. It doesn't contribute to an existing project that competes in any (significant) way with a current project.
In the case of these drivers, they make Linux a better option as a guest OS. That means there's probably at least one lost Windows sale because a business can use Linux instead. This is not good for Microsoft, but necessary, since they used GPL code. The sale is less valuable to them than the cost of writing the entire program themselves.
Contrarily, legacy code does not affect any current Microsoft markets. The closest relative to QuickBasic that I know of is VB.NET, which is more or less like comparing the Concord with the Santa Maria. Each is great in its time, but it's hardly a fair comparison.
Rather than applying their marketing ability to a mistake, covering up their legal requirement with statements of interoperability and choice that they didn't really have, Microsoft could easily just release their worthless code. The release of anything, no strings attached, would drastically improve Microsoft's reputation with the Linux community, without hurting their bottom line.
For an example of what such "useless" acts can do, take a look at Bethesda's release of Daggerfall as only being freely-available. It saw a Slashdot article, with almost entirely favorable comments.
Microsoft has not done this, so I will continue to remain skeptical of any good intentions. We've all heard the lies, and I, for one, am sick of words. I want action, brought about by a desire to connect with the community, not the threat of a lawsuit.
Subtle word choice bothers me even more than outright lies.
What would be less misleading is to say that the obligation comes from the legal use of the GPL, not the "community". The Linux community isn't requiring Microsoft to release the source. It's copyright law doing it, and that's a good thing.
A better-written statement, that wouldn't generate so much hatred, would be something like:
A: Because this is a requirement of the the license covering the code we used, and...
It's accurate, gives a nice nod to the community (in the people-who-care sense, not the we-love-everyone-so-everyone-should-love-us sense), doesn't make the entire statement sound like a marketing scheme.
Now, I'm not really opposed to Microsoft in general, but I'm not a fan, either. Things like this, which seem to be purely a marketing move, make me skeptical. Why would Microsoft release something actually valuable, when they're sitting on a large pile of worthless things that could be released first, like QuickBasic and old versions of DOS?
Unfortunately, I don't remember the circuit exactly, but one of the most interesting demonstrations I saw was transmitting sound from an iPod using an LED shining on a solar panel, amplified with what I believe was a single transistor and a 9-volt battery, and finally played through a speaker.
Cheap solar panels are fairly easy to come by, courtesy of Edmund Scientific and the like. The other parts can all be scavenged from various cheap sources and broken things. Incidentally, I'm also in favor of high-schoolers learning how to properly solder, as I didn't do until college.
"the biggest non-fictional spacecraft manufactured by humans on the planet Earth within recorded history, known to the public to exist prior to the writing of this article" doesn't have quite the same ring to it...
Rather than a specific paradigm, you should focus on what almost all languages have in common. Almost all languages operate on statements. They have variables to store data. They get input and produce output. These simple concepts are mind-numbingly dull for anyone with experience, but most new students I've seen haven't done programming before. I feel that students should enter the world of programming with some understanding of the terms used and the core functions. To this end, my personal opinion is to use a language like the old (not Visual) BASICs.
It is sad that BASIC has fallen out of favor now. Complaints of bad code, lack of power, and old age have tarnished its good reputation with little real reason. Most of the complaints I hear stem from seeing BASIC code in environments where it simply doesn't make sense. As an educational tool, it's the perfect introduction.
If I were ever to teach such a course, the first day would be a simple program, that just ENDs. Consider the basic concept there. The program starts at the beginning and runs until it's told to stop. It runs a single command. Such a simple program also allows time to understand the process of compiling. Next, I would introduce data, using a Hello World program (with an END statement, of course). There, we get data, output, and commands running in series. Again, these concepts are things we take for granted, but are of vital importance.
I'd move on to input, assigning variables, order of operations (8th grade WAS good for something!), and probably some basic conditions. If I were really into it, I'd throw in some logical operations for good measure. With the commands being in plain English, it's easier to ignore the details of the language, and focus on what the statement actually does. Best of all, there's no extra code with no apparent purpose. No importing or including libraries at the top of the program, no class declaration, just meaningful code.
After that comes the most important part of any BASIC curriculum: abandoning BASIC. Move to functions, or objects, or whatever popular concept strikes your (or better yet, the students') fancy, and don't return to BASIC again. By that time, the student should have a solid understanding of how general programming works, so they can focus on adapting to whatever paradigm comes next. In fact, I'd recommend against even telling the students they were using an unstructured language. Use BASIC as a way to understand the code itself, before trying to understand how it fits into the big picture of the program.
Until you're out hiking somewhere, and you lose the use of your arms in a terrible accident involving a pine tree, a squirrel, and a toothpick. Of course, your boots are still tied on, so using feet to crank isn't an option either.
Where is your precious elbow grease now, huh?
Wait a second... this is slashdot... "hiking" consists of going to the door to sign for the latest shipment of your chosen caffeine source...
Take a position not shared by 90% of your customers, and you're guaranteed failure. It really doesn't matter what the law says is right. It's economics, and the RIAA has failed or will fail, one way or the other.
I'm disappointed
on
Google Turns 10
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My favorite thing about Google is the unique logos marking special occasions. Sadly, they don't seem to consider today special enough.
See how much they really want it. Offer to add a link to them on your site ("This is NOT Example, Inc. Their website is http://www.company.example/") or, if it you're not using it for web hosting, see if they'd be happy with a redirect. As a general idea, if you lose nothing, ask for nothing in return.
Then, you're not seeking money for their name, but you're also not denying them outright.
Now, this makes a good example of why open-source software is bad. You wouldn't want some high school kid - I mean hacker - to be able to change the color of the sky would you? Or, god forbid, put in options! so your cat could walk over the keyboard and hit the right keys to change the sky! think of that! a cat, changing the color of the sky!
Now, Microsoft's shared-source is a good thing. We'll release our source, so others can see how well we made the sky blue. Now, the clouds being white is a trade secret, so you can't see that. But look at the blue! And of COURSE we'll protect users from the lurking threat of hackers trying to change your sky. In fact, we'll even be offering a product next year, called "Windows Sky Spectrum Visibility Protection Protecting Protector QJF 2009" which will ensure you get a perfect blue sky no matter who's out there.
Note, though, that if you want to see the same sky as others, you'll need Windows Sky Spectrum Visibility Protection Protecting Protector QJF 2009 Journeyman Edition, whih will cost only $300 more.
If you want to keep birds in the sky safe from hackers too, you'll need Windows Sky Spectrum Visibility Protection Protecting Protector QJF 2009 Bird-observer Edition. This is very different from that competing program, called "Bird watcher"... It's clearly inferior. Trust only the best to ensure you see bird the way they should be: translucent and butterfly-shaped.
"WWT's interface is better"... but only on windows... So for the schools, third-world countries, etc. we've read about who are adopting Linux... Microsoft assumes they don't exist?
This is why I will likely never use a Mac. I have nothing against Apple, and in fact I have recommended Macs for others, but their interface just doesn't work for me.
My personal setup is Ubuntu running a Windows VM. I get the (customized) Windows interface I like (and can show to others without explanation), and can switch to Linux whenever I need to do something more complex than Notepad.
I like my options. I have so many projects going at once, and I switch between them so often, that for me, easy reconfiguration is a must in a program.
A game I played in an archery class with a fellow computer science geek might be adapted to suit...
First player launches a projectile toward a bulls-eye target. Be it a dart, arrow, bean bag, whatever. The second player does the same, and has to closely justify the result. Things like symmetry over a vertical line, rotation, translation, etc. are valid options for justification. Be creative!
The first player goes again, and the second player follows, this time using the same operation. It's followed by a third round, again using the same round.
After retrieving the darts/arrows/beanbags/whatever, the players switch places, and play again. See who's the best at justifying their shots.
A CS variation: Shoot all three projectiles BEFORE declaring an operation. Then figure out the operation that gets the targets valid using the fewest machine instructions.
That probably doesn't make much sense, but whaddya expect for 3 AM?
I'm just thinking it'd be less expensive and technically easier (considering cost and difficulty of tracking debris) to just meet the satellite & fix it or remove the secrets. Heck, maybe even reuse the parts on the next overly expensive "defense" system.
There's no excuse for an outright incomplete CS program. Blaming the choice of language doesn't make the program any better. Here at my university (Northern Michigan University), we use Java for the first year of courses, before moving on to C, a nice survey class (introductions to LISP, Prolog, and such), and finally upper-level courses using whatever language is most suitable. Introducing students to programming through Java has harmed nothing, in my opinion.
In Java, it's entirely possible to understand the basic concepts of pointers. Granted, you can't do the neat little tricks with pointer math, but those kinds of things are hardly wanted for introductory courses anyway.
As for programming with a GUI, all I have to say is "Welcome to 1990." The Average Joe using a computer has been familiar with GUIs for at least two decades now. I personally love the command line (its power, especially for use with scripting, is unmatched), but for some programs, especially in my field (custom programming for small businesses), you need a GUI, just because that's all the user will be able to use. To concentrate on command-line programs throughout the short four years of college is hardly a service to the student. The code behind the GUI is still code, and today's students need to master both aspects.
Regarding garbage collectors, they are perfectly acceptable as a programming tool. Yes, a perfect programmer will be able to delete his own objects more efficiently, but that's no reason to remove a useful aid from use when it just doesn't matter. A small program, where most of the processor is wasted waiting for user input, can afford to run a garbage collector, especially if it means the program is ready for use earlier than expected. Use that time for testing, code review, or interface design, instead of wasting it writing unnecessary routines.
Reading this article (and re-reading the original), I am constantly reminded of another site I saw, discussing the state of CS programs, as compared to bricks. It's titled "A Degree in Brick Science", and is available at http://www.flounder.com/bricks.htm. This article discusses the same problems as Dewar does, but finds an entirely different conclusion: the underlying problem is how the universities arrange their CS courses. This makes far more sense than blindly blaming the current language of choice for introducing new students to the joys of programming.
In my opinion, any CS program worth the name should cover all the topics necessary. What language they use is inconsequential. This is the same rejection of a new tool that has eliminated BASIC from the repertoire of most schools. I learned BASIC first, left it, and have not returned. I took with me the knowledge of how to break up large problems into small ones, and turn those small problems into individual steps to form a final program. I took my experience with boolean logic, my love for string manipulation, and my frustration with stupid mistakes. I moved on. It has not made me less of a programmer at all. Rather, it made me better. I learned quickly my strengths and weaknesses, and have carried them with me.
I see Java in the same way: It provides a place for eager students to explore the possibilities without needing to know the details of the theory. Of course, the best programmers will always be the ones who know both. In our push for more theoretical knowledge, we must be careful not to do what Dewar has done. We must not ignore progress in exchange for upholding antiquated traditions.
We could take Dewar's argument to an extreme, and claim that we should teach students to set 64 switches at a time to program a modern processor. This would quickly be rejected. Yet it is a more pure way to program, to actually have to think about the individual wires. Assembly language is a tool to make machine code easier to write and understand. C++ is a tool to make assembly easier to write and understand. Why must we stop there?
-Sarten-X
Slashdot Mirror
For what it's worth, I applaud your process. I'm assuming it doesn't get in the way of 'real progress' (however that may be defined at your company), but it seems to be a nice mix of theory and practice. If only more companies cared about performance on low-end hardware...
I do believe it is. Thanks!
The case presented there is ridiculously going to the other extreme, but the principle is sound. A few rare memory leaks aren't a problem, but using a bubble sort on a million-item list is.
"A stick of RAM costs how much? $50?"
I don't remember the source of that quote, but it was in relation to a company spending money (far more than $50) to reduce the memory use of their program. Sure, there's a lot of talk in computer science curricula about using efficient algorithms, but from what I've seen and heard, companies almost always respond to performance problems by buying bigger and better hardware. If software weren't grossly inefficient, how would that affect data centers? Less power consumption, cheaper hardware, and more "bang for your buck", so to speak.
Eventually, this whole debate becomes moot, as data centers can get more income from the hardware, thus still provide the uptime, redundancy, and features, without the need to cut costs. Once those basic needs are out of the way, there's room for expansion into other less-than-critical offerings, and finally, innovation in areas other than uptime.
User Friendly is not a comic strip. It's a reality TV series encoded in static serialized graphical form.
Left hand, this is the right hand. You two should talk sometime, and find out what each other is doing.
Windows Server's ability to hypervise Linux is actually a feature, since many enterprises are mixed environments.
Yes, it makes Linux better. This isn't in doubt. The slight hit to Microsoft comes from a lost sale of Windows for a guest OS, but it's countered by a customer (who, hypothetically, MUST have a perfect Linux guest) being able to use Windows as a hypervisor.
When I say "entire program", I'm referring to the entirety of what Microsoft made to make Linux work better as a guest (which I'm assuming is everything released in these past few days)
As for the other projects, Microsoft does have a obvious stake in both PHP (improving IIS's performance and market) and Mono (improving the same for C# and .NET). Apache's license, unlike the GPL, allows them to use any technology in their own software. Funding Apache becomes a gamble on the foundation producing something useful in the future.
I have yet to see a contribution from Microsoft that didn't appear selfish. That includes these recent events. I realize that being a corporation they're only concerned with their bottom line, but it seems to me that having fewer unhappy potential customers would lead to higher profits.
Perhaps I'm just ignorant, and hatred is a new business strategy.
They're required by law to give it away. That's what this entire news item is about. They aren't the ones who 'chose' the GPL. They used GPL code first, so their additions must be GPL, as well. The only other choice is to write the whole thing from scratch.
As for the almost-worthless legacy code, that's exactly my point. It doesn't contribute to an existing project that competes in any (significant) way with a current project.
In the case of these drivers, they make Linux a better option as a guest OS. That means there's probably at least one lost Windows sale because a business can use Linux instead. This is not good for Microsoft, but necessary, since they used GPL code. The sale is less valuable to them than the cost of writing the entire program themselves.
Contrarily, legacy code does not affect any current Microsoft markets. The closest relative to QuickBasic that I know of is VB.NET, which is more or less like comparing the Concord with the Santa Maria. Each is great in its time, but it's hardly a fair comparison.
Rather than applying their marketing ability to a mistake, covering up their legal requirement with statements of interoperability and choice that they didn't really have, Microsoft could easily just release their worthless code. The release of anything, no strings attached, would drastically improve Microsoft's reputation with the Linux community, without hurting their bottom line.
For an example of what such "useless" acts can do, take a look at Bethesda's release of Daggerfall as only being freely-available. It saw a Slashdot article, with almost entirely favorable comments.
Microsoft has not done this, so I will continue to remain skeptical of any good intentions. We've all heard the lies, and I, for one, am sick of words. I want action, brought about by a desire to connect with the community, not the threat of a lawsuit.
Subtle word choice bothers me even more than outright lies.
What would be less misleading is to say that the obligation comes from the legal use of the GPL, not the "community". The Linux community isn't requiring Microsoft to release the source. It's copyright law doing it, and that's a good thing.
A better-written statement, that wouldn't generate so much hatred, would be something like:
A: Because this is a requirement of the the license covering the code we used, and ...
It's accurate, gives a nice nod to the community (in the people-who-care sense, not the we-love-everyone-so-everyone-should-love-us sense), doesn't make the entire statement sound like a marketing scheme.
Now, I'm not really opposed to Microsoft in general, but I'm not a fan, either. Things like this, which seem to be purely a marketing move, make me skeptical. Why would Microsoft release something actually valuable, when they're sitting on a large pile of worthless things that could be released first, like QuickBasic and old versions of DOS?
Unfortunately, I don't remember the circuit exactly, but one of the most interesting demonstrations I saw was transmitting sound from an iPod using an LED shining on a solar panel, amplified with what I believe was a single transistor and a 9-volt battery, and finally played through a speaker.
Cheap solar panels are fairly easy to come by, courtesy of Edmund Scientific and the like. The other parts can all be scavenged from various cheap sources and broken things. Incidentally, I'm also in favor of high-schoolers learning how to properly solder, as I didn't do until college.
"the biggest non-fictional spacecraft manufactured by humans on the planet Earth within recorded history, known to the public to exist prior to the writing of this article" doesn't have quite the same ring to it...
Rather than a specific paradigm, you should focus on what almost all languages have in common. Almost all languages operate on statements. They have variables to store data. They get input and produce output. These simple concepts are mind-numbingly dull for anyone with experience, but most new students I've seen haven't done programming before. I feel that students should enter the world of programming with some understanding of the terms used and the core functions. To this end, my personal opinion is to use a language like the old (not Visual) BASICs.
It is sad that BASIC has fallen out of favor now. Complaints of bad code, lack of power, and old age have tarnished its good reputation with little real reason. Most of the complaints I hear stem from seeing BASIC code in environments where it simply doesn't make sense. As an educational tool, it's the perfect introduction.
If I were ever to teach such a course, the first day would be a simple program, that just ENDs. Consider the basic concept there. The program starts at the beginning and runs until it's told to stop. It runs a single command. Such a simple program also allows time to understand the process of compiling. Next, I would introduce data, using a Hello World program (with an END statement, of course). There, we get data, output, and commands running in series. Again, these concepts are things we take for granted, but are of vital importance.
I'd move on to input, assigning variables, order of operations (8th grade WAS good for something!), and probably some basic conditions. If I were really into it, I'd throw in some logical operations for good measure. With the commands being in plain English, it's easier to ignore the details of the language, and focus on what the statement actually does. Best of all, there's no extra code with no apparent purpose. No importing or including libraries at the top of the program, no class declaration, just meaningful code.
After that comes the most important part of any BASIC curriculum: abandoning BASIC. Move to functions, or objects, or whatever popular concept strikes your (or better yet, the students') fancy, and don't return to BASIC again. By that time, the student should have a solid understanding of how general programming works, so they can focus on adapting to whatever paradigm comes next. In fact, I'd recommend against even telling the students they were using an unstructured language. Use BASIC as a way to understand the code itself, before trying to understand how it fits into the big picture of the program.
Until you're out hiking somewhere, and you lose the use of your arms in a terrible accident involving a pine tree, a squirrel, and a toothpick. Of course, your boots are still tied on, so using feet to crank isn't an option either.
Where is your precious elbow grease now, huh?
Wait a second... this is slashdot... "hiking" consists of going to the door to sign for the latest shipment of your chosen caffeine source...
This seems novel enough for Amazon, so has it been patented?
Take a position not shared by 90% of your customers, and you're guaranteed failure. It really doesn't matter what the law says is right. It's economics, and the RIAA has failed or will fail, one way or the other.
My favorite thing about Google is the unique logos marking special occasions. Sadly, they don't seem to consider today special enough.
See how much they really want it. Offer to add a link to them on your site ("This is NOT Example, Inc. Their website is http://www.company.example/") or, if it you're not using it for web hosting, see if they'd be happy with a redirect. As a general idea, if you lose nothing, ask for nothing in return.
Then, you're not seeking money for their name, but you're also not denying them outright.
the "ignore it and maybe it'll go away" approach?
That'll be fixed in the next service pack.
Now, this makes a good example of why open-source software is bad. You wouldn't want some high school kid - I mean hacker - to be able to change the color of the sky would you? Or, god forbid, put in options! so your cat could walk over the keyboard and hit the right keys to change the sky! think of that! a cat, changing the color of the sky!
Now, Microsoft's shared-source is a good thing. We'll release our source, so others can see how well we made the sky blue. Now, the clouds being white is a trade secret, so you can't see that. But look at the blue! And of COURSE we'll protect users from the lurking threat of hackers trying to change your sky. In fact, we'll even be offering a product next year, called "Windows Sky Spectrum Visibility Protection Protecting Protector QJF 2009" which will ensure you get a perfect blue sky no matter who's out there.
Note, though, that if you want to see the same sky as others, you'll need Windows Sky Spectrum Visibility Protection Protecting Protector QJF 2009 Journeyman Edition, whih will cost only $300 more.
If you want to keep birds in the sky safe from hackers too, you'll need Windows Sky Spectrum Visibility Protection Protecting Protector QJF 2009 Bird-observer Edition. This is very different from that competing program, called "Bird watcher"... It's clearly inferior. Trust only the best to ensure you see bird the way they should be: translucent and butterfly-shaped.
(not having read the article)
"WWT's interface is better"... but only on windows... So for the schools, third-world countries, etc. we've read about who are adopting Linux... Microsoft assumes they don't exist?
It is different, but still fixed by Apple.
This is why I will likely never use a Mac. I have nothing against Apple, and in fact I have recommended Macs for others, but their interface just doesn't work for me.
My personal setup is Ubuntu running a Windows VM. I get the (customized) Windows interface I like (and can show to others without explanation), and can switch to Linux whenever I need to do something more complex than Notepad.
I like my options. I have so many projects going at once, and I switch between them so often, that for me, easy reconfiguration is a must in a program.
Insert metaphor regarding painting a barn here.
Am I the only person who judges programs by their available options, not just feature set?
A game I played in an archery class with a fellow computer science geek might be adapted to suit...
First player launches a projectile toward a bulls-eye target. Be it a dart, arrow, bean bag, whatever. The second player does the same, and has to closely justify the result. Things like symmetry over a vertical line, rotation, translation, etc. are valid options for justification. Be creative!
The first player goes again, and the second player follows, this time using the same operation. It's followed by a third round, again using the same round.
After retrieving the darts/arrows/beanbags/whatever, the players switch places, and play again. See who's the best at justifying their shots.
A CS variation: Shoot all three projectiles BEFORE declaring an operation. Then figure out the operation that gets the targets valid using the fewest machine instructions.
That probably doesn't make much sense, but whaddya expect for 3 AM?
I'm just thinking it'd be less expensive and technically easier (considering cost and difficulty of tracking debris) to just meet the satellite & fix it or remove the secrets. Heck, maybe even reuse the parts on the next overly expensive "defense" system.
Nice cheap clean burnup, or expensive messy shooting? It worries me that our government even debated this, let alone reached the conclusion they did.
There's no excuse for an outright incomplete CS program. Blaming the choice of language doesn't make the program any better. Here at my university (Northern Michigan University), we use Java for the first year of courses, before moving on to C, a nice survey class (introductions to LISP, Prolog, and such), and finally upper-level courses using whatever language is most suitable. Introducing students to programming through Java has harmed nothing, in my opinion. In Java, it's entirely possible to understand the basic concepts of pointers. Granted, you can't do the neat little tricks with pointer math, but those kinds of things are hardly wanted for introductory courses anyway. As for programming with a GUI, all I have to say is "Welcome to 1990." The Average Joe using a computer has been familiar with GUIs for at least two decades now. I personally love the command line (its power, especially for use with scripting, is unmatched), but for some programs, especially in my field (custom programming for small businesses), you need a GUI, just because that's all the user will be able to use. To concentrate on command-line programs throughout the short four years of college is hardly a service to the student. The code behind the GUI is still code, and today's students need to master both aspects. Regarding garbage collectors, they are perfectly acceptable as a programming tool. Yes, a perfect programmer will be able to delete his own objects more efficiently, but that's no reason to remove a useful aid from use when it just doesn't matter. A small program, where most of the processor is wasted waiting for user input, can afford to run a garbage collector, especially if it means the program is ready for use earlier than expected. Use that time for testing, code review, or interface design, instead of wasting it writing unnecessary routines. Reading this article (and re-reading the original), I am constantly reminded of another site I saw, discussing the state of CS programs, as compared to bricks. It's titled "A Degree in Brick Science", and is available at http://www.flounder.com/bricks.htm. This article discusses the same problems as Dewar does, but finds an entirely different conclusion: the underlying problem is how the universities arrange their CS courses. This makes far more sense than blindly blaming the current language of choice for introducing new students to the joys of programming. In my opinion, any CS program worth the name should cover all the topics necessary. What language they use is inconsequential. This is the same rejection of a new tool that has eliminated BASIC from the repertoire of most schools. I learned BASIC first, left it, and have not returned. I took with me the knowledge of how to break up large problems into small ones, and turn those small problems into individual steps to form a final program. I took my experience with boolean logic, my love for string manipulation, and my frustration with stupid mistakes. I moved on. It has not made me less of a programmer at all. Rather, it made me better. I learned quickly my strengths and weaknesses, and have carried them with me. I see Java in the same way: It provides a place for eager students to explore the possibilities without needing to know the details of the theory. Of course, the best programmers will always be the ones who know both. In our push for more theoretical knowledge, we must be careful not to do what Dewar has done. We must not ignore progress in exchange for upholding antiquated traditions. We could take Dewar's argument to an extreme, and claim that we should teach students to set 64 switches at a time to program a modern processor. This would quickly be rejected. Yet it is a more pure way to program, to actually have to think about the individual wires. Assembly language is a tool to make machine code easier to write and understand. C++ is a tool to make assembly easier to write and understand. Why must we stop there? -Sarten-X