went through this same leap. Unfortunately, I also brought the bad GOTO habit from BASIC. After awhile of mysterious stack overflows in my games, I figured out that using JMP from a subroutine instead of returning from it was a very bad idea.
Wait, are you telling me that using GOTO in BASIC is what prevented you from understanding the stack when you switched over to 6502 assembly?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Nor can I imagine why (or believe that) you'd put yourself through unnecessary pain by writing a macro assembler in unstructured BASIC without using of GOTO. (It's a pretty important, and useful, aspect of flow control in BASIC on that C64.)
Best $30 I never spent!
What did you spend $30 on? It couldn't have been the Macro Assembler cartridge (you didn't have the money) Was it the C64? Did you pick it up at a garage sale in 1996? If that's the case, how much did they want for the Macro Assembler cartridge? Why would they sell the two separately?
How about really spend some time on teaching HTML and CSS, put them as the main characters of the class and start on Javascript later, maybe next semester?
Because it's far easier to just use a different language for the course. No new courses need to be created and no additional prerequisites are added to the current course.
Languages shouldn't use whitespace. I thought we had established this in the 70's
Whitespace utilization in Python uses the programmer's intuition to instantly perceive block structure.
This is the most inane defense of Python's use of whitespace I've seen to date. If I want a block, I'll delineate it myself. I don't want the interpreter 'intuiting' my intentions.
Oh, wait. It doesn't use my "intuition to instantly perceive block structure". I delineate blocks myself via indentation.
Tisk, tisk. You had me all wrapped up in your magical thinking.
This beats the heck out of scanning lines for randomly embedded (speaking spatially, now) braces.
Badly formatted code is badly formatted code. Run it through a pretty-printer -- we've had those for 30 years. Problem solved.
Mind you, it is possible to write C (and I do), for instance, nominally a free form language WRT whitespace, with meaningful whitespace. Really helps, especially later on, when you haven't seen the code for years.
Yeah, this is what virtually everyone does already. Except in that case the whitespace isn't meaningful to the compiler -- just to the programmer. This is the way it should be.
The fact that Python *requires* whitespace is simply a means to bring your intuition to the table by force, and frankly, I think it's a good idea.
It in no way brings "your intuition to the table" by force or any other means. It just makes you indent your code according to Guido's preferences.
That some folks can't, or won't, get it... that's unfortunate. For them.:)
There's nothing to get -- Whitespace is how you delineate blocks in Python. There is nothing mystical here. It does not magically "bring your intuition to the table".
It DOES, however, allow Python un-aware editors to introduce errors into your program. (Think: converting tabs to spaces and the like.) It also doesn't allow you to use whitespace to format for readability. (Yes, there are cases where not indenting according to structure will actually improve legibility. You can probably quite easily think of a few examples yourself.)
I get why people like Python. What I don't understand is why they feel the need to defend this particular aspect of the language.
Even if you think meaningful whitespace is great, it should be easy to understand why other people dislike it. You should also at least be willing to acknowledge that it can, and often does, cause problems (moving code between editors or sharing code on webpages or via email, just for starters).
Really, the only benefit I can see is that you'll never be forced to look at badly-indented Python code. Considering the problems it causes, I hardly think it's worth the trade.
I actually did think for myself when I rejected GOTO.
Did you reject GOTO as a way to forever avoid writing anything in assembly?
I actually went back and read the "GOTO considered harmful" essay.
Yeah, Dijkstra was *pissed* that Wirth changed the title. -- You know, because it misrepresents the content of the letter. (letter with original title)
Can you provide an example of when goto is appropriate -- in particular, when it's appropriate to use a goto rather than actually structured programming, or even a safer option like break, return, or throw?
Dijkstra was dead wrong on that (as is evident by the millions of programmers who learned BASIC on their micros in the 80's) -- He was just hating on BASIC without reason. (Really, he never gave a reason for his anti-basic screed in that speech.)
Now, you seem to be under the impression that he was railing against GOTO (he wasn't) -- you're thinking of Niklaus Wirth (who made up the "GOTO considered harmful" title to a Dijkstra letter --which Dijkstra took exception to! Read the original letter it's more about misuse of goto in structured languages than anything else.)
I challenge anyone spreading the "BASIC is the suck" or "BASIC will destroy your brain" meme to offer a legitimate reason for their beliefs. (None of this "it teaches you bad habits" rhetorical nonsense. If that's your reason, you've got to list those "bad habits" and explain how BASIC forces or encourages you to adopt them.)
So far, no one has tried. It seems that no one has ever bothered to justify their irrational belief.
You recommend Python as a teaching language instead, which I find confusing. Nothing suggests "my students will be confused" more than meaningful white space.
Remember that students aren't programmers -- blocks mean nothing to them. Try teaching iteration in a language where blocks end because the indentation level changes. (In BASIC, you have wend and next statements -- it gives the student an anchor for understanding the "jump back" part and clearly delineates the end of the block.) That bit of Python starts to look a bit magical from the students perspective -- and we DON'T want students to start accepting "magic" with the promise that they'll more fully understand later.
I do like the immediate mode interpreter, but the language itself just isn't well suited as a learning language.
Programming should NEVER begin with OO. If for no other reason than the cruft you need to add in OO languages before you can even begin to introducing basic concepts.
Objects are great when used appropriately. However, knowing how and when to use objects takes experience. Beginners by definition don't have experience.
"Pure" OO languages are even worse. When everything is an object, you don't have a choice about when to use them and, consequently, are much more likely to use them inappropriately. (Bad OO code makes you wish you were maintaining bad VB code!)
Sure, a good programmer can write great OO code, but such programmers are extremely rare -- You're not likely to find an introductory class full of competent and experienced OO programmers.
Having taught programming to many different age groups (from children to adults) I know from experience that OO is not the way to go. You can't just start off with structure -- it's totally inappropriate. They simply can't learn to structure their code until they're capable of writing some!
Teaching someone programming is a bit like teaching someone to think. A good teaching language should let you introduce all the basic concepts like direct sequencing, bounded and conditional iteration, conditional branching, variables and types, i/o, etc. without a bunch of indecipherable code cluttering up the program and confusing the student ("magic" just-ignore-this code does not aid in the learning process).
For that, the submitter is spot-on. Languages like BASIC and Logo are excellent introductory languages. All meat and no fat. I prefer Logo for children under 10, BASIC for everyone else. I've tried Java, JavaScript, C, Pascal, and even COBOL. Nothing stays out of your way like BASIC or gives you the instant satisfaction (crucial to younger children) like Logo.
I've yet to see any valid criticism of BASIC. It's been a modern procedural language for more than 25 years, yet claims of it 'mutilating the mind' or forever ruining programmers who learned it as a first language abound.
What's wrong with BASIC? More importantly, what's wrong with using BASIC as a teaching language? It's got everything you need and none of the "just ingore it for now" cruft you'll find in modern languages.
Is it too much exposure to bad VB code? I've seen very good VB code -- and some of the worst VB code ever written. It never once occurred to me to blame the language for the bad code, nor praise it for the good.
On your other suggestion, teaching JavaScript as a first language (by virtue of it's availability). I would strongly recommend against it.
See, I have actually used JavaScript to introduce computer programming. The results were... discouraging.
See, if the students aren't already familiar with HTML and CSS you get to spend two weeks of precious class time giving them a crash-course (which will require periodic review) Then you introduce events and functions -- another day lost to NOT learning about programming. (Yes, functions are important, but not comprehensible at the level the students would be at.)
It's very frustrating for the students, who feel like they're cramming for a final exam. By the time you actually get to teach some basic concepts, they're mentally exhausted.
Add to this the quicks in the various implementations of HTML, CSS, and JS in the hands of complete beginners and you've set yourself up for the worst intro class in history.
I don't know that I'd ever use a language like Java to teach programming (as a first language) to a student regardless of age. It just has too much indecipherable cruft for the beginner. Take this, for example:
public class hello {
public static void main(String args[])
{
system.out.println("Hello, World!");
} }
Now, if you're trying to each basic concepts like input/output, direct sequencing, bounded and conditional iteration, and conditional branching you're going to want to ignore everything except what is in the inner block. It's totally unnecessary and is confusing for the student (who can only view those lines as magical incantations that let the program work -- and that the instructor will dutifully tell them to 'just ignore'.)
Hell, I've met lot's of Java programmers who don't know why main is declared static -- to them, it's still magical -- they learned the chant which would appease the complier, but never bothered to find out why it worked.
Languages like BASIC are excellent for learning as, if for no other reason, they don't have that sort of cruft. Just about every basic around is structured -- no line numbers required, subroutines, functions, everything you need. It makes introducing new concepts to students really easy.
That said, I'm a big supporter of using Logo to introduce programming to children under 10. Turtles are fun, and the immediate feedback you get after tying a command turns the whole process into a kind of game.
No sanely designed programming language will ever require you to label each line of code and throw and require the lines to be renumbered whenever you want to put new code in the middle.
BASIC existed long before the full-screen editor -- hell, it existed before the full-screen! Line numbers made a lot of sense back in 1964 (and for some time thereafter). If you can't figure out why this is so, just ask.
You should also note that most people designed their programs on paper *before* they entered it into the computer. They also had the good sense to leave gaps in the numbering (10 20 30 instead of 1 2 3) for possible later additions and used the hundreds or thousands place for marking off program sections.
Only a totally incompetent idiot would constantly be using renum.
Besides, line numbers haven't even been necessary since the advent of structured BASIC in the early 80's. In case you didn't notice, structured BASIC has dominated the language for the past 25 years. -- While it's true that you'll find any number of BASIC interpreters which support line numbers, you'll have a hard time finding one that requires their use.
But don't let your total ignorance of the subject keep you from forming strong opinions.
How about this example - near my GF's house, 4 officers were shot in cold blood in a coffee house. They were drinking coffee. The assailant got away, and the assailant was known to have the "death by cop" wish. One of the dead officers was a friend of hers.
That's the Lakewood shooting. I still don't feel any sympathy.
"Death by cop" is only a "thing" because the police have this nasty habit of committing senseless violent acts and cold-blooded murder while hiding behind their infamous "blue wall of silence".
Take the recent unprovoked cold-blooded murder of John T. Williams for example. (There are tons of other examples -- the vast majority of the time, the murderous cops get away with their crimes.)
Mr. Williams, a partially deaf elderly man, was shot 5 times in the side by a police officer less than 30 seconds after leaving his cruiser.
The blood-thirsty officer, Ian Birk, has been on paid administrative leave since the incident.
If you're not a cop, and you kill someone, you spend time in jail awaiting trial. If you're a cop, you get paid vacation while the "incident" is "investigated" by your cop buddies.
If the police are afraid to leave the house in uniform, it's their own fault. The constant abuses perpetrated against the public -- which habitually go unpunished -- is exactly what has caused the tension between law enforcement and the citizenry.
When that tension turns violent and a cop gets hurt, I say that's fair. Perhaps they'll learn that with the power they've been granted comes responsibility and that the People will no longer tolerate the abuse of the rights and privileges we entrusted to them.
There is a big difference between learning to bang out code (most coding shops I've seen demand 10,000 lines of code a day regardless of bugs), versus true computer science and the core concepts.
Bullshit. (Unless you're in some third-world "cheap to outsource to" country with managers from 1970's)
True computer science is more than 1/0s. It is being able to deal with the layers of abstraction from the pulses of electricity running around a CPU to how a user points and fertilizes their donkeys on FarmVille.
Edgar Dijkstra also thinks you're wrong: "computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
Wait... "fertilizes their donkeys"???
Advanced concepts of structures more complicated than a linked list -- circular buffers, heaps, stacks, caches, hash tables.
How are any of those things considered 'advanced concepts' which are 'more complicated than a linked list'? They all look like common data structures to me. Where did you study CS? Bangalore Discount Computer College?
Dealing with a hard disk. Being able to position the read/write head not just on top of the data you want, but right before it, so you get blocks before and after the read, or if handed a bunch of reads from sectors, the most optimal way to read them all, giving priority to the ones that need it the most first, and which to cache first, which others to dump.
Kind of funny how you ignored my corrections about iTunes and iPods in your reply.
If by 'corrections' you mean 'correction' then I didn't think it was worth addressing. Yeah, you don't need an apple ID -- unless you want to use the store -- which is the biggest part of the iPod/iTunes pair.
Kind of funny how you ignored most of my post.
Well, seeing as I was talking about no-name brand mp3 players
I was talking about low-cost players -- that doesn't always mean no-name -- I'd press the point, but it won't advance this discussion.
I'll go with "The pink, blue and gray ones sold at a home electronics store downtown a few months ago for SEK 299 each"
It's not hard to identify the model. Most "no name" players are re-branded versions of a generic model from a larger manufacturer (which makes devices for the purpose of re-branding). The model number is usually printed somewhere on the device. A quick google search will typically get you the manufacturer and model of the player even if all you see is the resellers "model" number.
I've seen tons of no-name players -- I've yet to see one which behaves as you describe. I'm afraid that I cannot accept your claim without evidence.
Using an iPod and/or iTunes does not require an Apple ID.
Sure, if you don't want access to the iTunes store.
You install iTunes and it takes care of everything for you.
If you think using a USB drive is a task only suited to "computer nerds" you should see non-technical users try to download and install software.:)
How do you set up playlists on your RCA player? Edit tags?
There is optional software included with "branded" low-cost players (like RCA and SanDisk) which allows you to create playlists (and perform other common tasks).
Lots of the newer low-cost players will index your songs by artist, album, genera, etc. automatically. Some even let you create playlists right on the unit. No computer required.
In my experience (5 years at the public lab) most people don't create playlists. They "just want the songs on their player." I've never seen anyone create a playlist nor has anyone ever asked me how.
After you install iTunes (it only has to happen once, or never if you have a Mac), there is no step three, you just plug in the iPod.
If you have the latest version of iTunes (or a version new enough for your particular model) If you don't have a Mac (like most people) you'll need to download and install it -- not a simple prospect for a non-technical user.
So, assuming you've got iTunes installed and updated; then you "just plug in your iPod". With the low-cost player, you can just plug it in -- No special software is required -- Not only isn't there a step 3, you don't need steps 1 and 2 either.
Again, if the user has ever used a USB drive, photo CD, digital camera, etc. then they don't need *any additional skills* -- No need to learn a new program just to get music on their mp3 player.
Remove songs?
1) Click song. 2) Hit delete.
Add new songs without dealing with "Replace existing files" dialogs?
If you're adding new songs, the 'replace existing files' dialog won't appear.
Here's a question, how do you download iTunes without dealing with the "this type of file may harm your computer" dialog?
Hell, how do you expect most people to know what drive letter their player is, and where all their music is?
In windows XP and above, plugging in their mp3 player will cause a dialog to appear allowing them to open the drive to view files or play their music with Media Player. If the user has ever used a USB drive, digital camera, etc. (like most people under 30) this isn't new to them.
If they've used their computer to do virtually anything file related (like, saving a file), they're likely already familiar with the "My Music" folder.
Hell, people seem to manage getting their pictures from their digital camera to their 'my pictures' folder and on to facebook without difficulty.
I don't see why you think that this is some super-special computer nerd knowledge.
You're mad if you think this is true. Easier for you, but you vastly overestimate the level of knowledge and desire to fuck around with their devices of the average consumer.
What do you mean "fuck around" -- plug in player, drag and drop. Just like a USB drive -- are those only for people who "desire to 'fuck around' with their devices?"
I'd say that no extra software + common skills = significantly *less* 'fucking around' than the iPod + iTunes mess.
I've had more than one user *complain* that their new iPod Touch didn't "work" as easily as their old $25 player from Big Lots.
I've dealt with an untold number of users with various mp3 players. The cheap ones have the iPod beat hands-down when it comes to ease of use for the average non-technical user. Trust me, we don't get a lot of skilled users at the public lab!
Really? Because a lot of the cheap "no-name" brand mp3 players I've dealt with have had a tendency to require all sorts of weirdness (a favorite is that they need you to install a USB driver that makes the entire USB subsystem unstable as well as some neat extensions for explorer.
Yeah, you'll only need to install a driver if you're running a version of windows older than XP.
Then there are the mp3 players that only work with specific versions of MS Windows.
Can you name one? I've never seen a low-cost mp3 player that didn't function as a USB Drive. I think you're making this up.
'm not even going to bother with the rest of your comment but I'll give you a hint: You seem to have little knowledge of what you're talking about.
I see that you have problems with reading comprehension. Nowhere in my post did I make such a claim!
What you're trying to say is that iPods are so difficult to use that a normal experience is that after three hours a person won't be up and running, but with another brand, drag-and-drop and bam, music!
In my experience, it's quite common. I run a public computer lab in the evenings 4-days a week. The ONLY problems I see people have with mp3 players are with Apple and some Sony products.
Yes, most users have a very difficult time getting started with iTunes. Try this: Grab a few music CDs and see how long it takes to get iTunes installed, get registered with your apple ID , and the songs on those cd's on the player.
For a non-technical user, it's quite the task.
The majority of <$50 mp3 players, in contrast, work just like a USB Drive. No special software needed, no registration, nothing new to learn.
Now, compare the iPod way to the cheap-mp3 player way. Put a CD in the drive, copying the music on the cd (Media player will likely automatically start this for them) then right-click the my music folder and hit send-to.
The worst non-technical user may need help with the 'send-to' part, but only if they've never used a USB drive.
Yeah, it really is 'struggle with iTunes' or 'drag-and-drop BAM music'.
Do you realize how absurd that is when you consider how many people have iPods and how many buy them again when they need a new one?
Why would sales matter when it comes to actual ease-of-use? (Do you realize how absurd that is?)
People *believe* that apple products are easy to use. If they have trouble, they don't blame apple -- they blame their own technical incompetence.
Besides, most users are completely unaware that less complicated (easier to use) products are on the market. After all, *everyone knows* that "iPods are easiest to use" and "easiest to get up and running" Why would they bother with the alternatives? The non-apple players are obviously going to be more difficult...
iPods are easiest to use,
Sorry, in ease of use, I'd bet on that cheap RCA I mentioned earlier (with only pause/play, stop, skip ahead, skip previous buttons) against any iPod on the market.
easiest to get up and running,
This is a total joke.
You've got to install iTunes, get an apple ID, etc. before you can even think about copying music onto an iPod.
Out-of-box to up and running in an hour (if you're lucky) Many hours if you're non-technical.
Just about any <$50 player? Plug it in, copy songs. Just like copying a file onto a USB drive.
Out-of-box to up and running in seconds. Minutes if you're non-technical.
easiest to get repaired
I'll grant you that -- though who gets a service plan on an mp3 player that costs them all of $30?
Though many of them come with a 30/60/90-day warranty. Just ship it to the address in the manual with a receipt for a replacement.
easiest to get assistance with.
With the simple $50 players, you really don't need assistance. They're so easy to use...
Can't the similar be said about Apple? Does the iPhone even have a memory card slot when almost all of their smartphone competition does? No. Are any ipod/ipad/iphone batteries user replaceable? No. Apple design fail. Right?
Well aren't you clever? Pat yourself on the back and sneer at people who don't share your opinion about Apple. I'm sure it's making the quality of your life AMAZING
So... In your opinion, not having a user-replaceable battery and not having a memory card slot is better?
Sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how 'better' in this case is a matter of opinion.
just think if you'd given your dad a Linux or Windows machine. You'd be getting at least twice the amount of tech support calls about incomprehensible error messages, hardware incompatibilities, etc.
I setup both my non-technical uncle and my wifes non-work computer with Ubuntu.
To say that Linux 'just works' is an understatement.
New printer/scanner combo? Just plug it in. New updates? Click 'okay'.
It's been about two years in my Uncles case -- I see his wifes windows computer about every two or three months. Every time he brags about how great Ubuntu is (he hasn't had a single problem yet).
I've seen his daughters MacBook twice over the same period for various problems (not that any iFan will believe that).
My wife hasn't had a single problem with her Ubuntu machine either -- though I do have to keep the maintenance up on her work computer (which is running windows).
How quaint. Somehow these "inferior" products are outselling by orders of magnitude those things you seem to think are better...
One possible explanation is that people are just really stupid. Not just really stupid once, but repeatedly so. They buy an iPod, see some superior product (I'm not sure what though. Zune?) but then go out an buy a new iPod when their old one breaks down. And not just a few people, but millions upon millions do this?
Odd, I see the exact opposite happen. When my wife was still in college, she decided that she wanted an iPod. I got her a $40 RCA mp3 player (with an sd card slot) instead.
Out of the box, she copied her "workout" music (just a quick drag-and-drop) and was listening to her favorite tunes in about 20 minutes.
Her friend, envious of the new toy, went out and purchased the latest iPod -- you know, to have something "better". (You know the type.)
Out of the box and... three hours later still had not managed to get music on her "superior" device. I told her that she needed to download the new version of iTunes from Apples website if she wanted it to recognize her new iPod. I don't remember if she ever managed to complete that step.
Needless to say, my wife was no longer disappointed that she didn't get a iPod and was quite happy I got her that little $40 mp3 player instead.
Her friend ended up selling her iPod and picked up the same mp3 player my wife had.
It's strange that Apple somehow happens to be the only company that manages to do this.
It really is strange. My guess is that people just aren't aware of the alternatives. Either that, or they may think Apple products are "the best" and assume that no matter what trouble they have, the alternatives must surely be worse.
Why is everyone suddenly scrambling to get out a tablet and/or tablet OS? (hint: It's not because of the tablets that have existed before the iPad.)
Oh, I know! It's because there's a lot of money to be made in low-priced tablets in the wake of the iPad hype.
Remember: Tablets are toys. There are lots of people who would like one, but won't pay Apples price for what they (correctly) see as a play-thing.
My wife wants one for social stuff and to play games on facebook but doesn't think such a device should cost more than $150. I agree with her. I'm hoping to find a deal on a low-end Android (2.1 or 2.2) tablet for Christmas.
If she found an iPad under the tree, she'd return it unopened (and then buy jewelry).
Slashdot Mirror
This is an absolute you have no justification to be declaring.
Yep. I did not justify my assertion. You are correct.
I assume that you completely agree with the rest of my post, as you didn't raise any objections to it.
Brilliant post -- well done.
went through this same leap. Unfortunately, I also brought the bad GOTO habit from BASIC. After awhile of mysterious stack overflows in my games, I figured out that using JMP from a subroutine instead of returning from it was a very bad idea.
Wait, are you telling me that using GOTO in BASIC is what prevented you from understanding the stack when you switched over to 6502 assembly?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Nor can I imagine why (or believe that) you'd put yourself through unnecessary pain by writing a macro assembler in unstructured BASIC without using of GOTO. (It's a pretty important, and useful, aspect of flow control in BASIC on that C64.)
Best $30 I never spent!
What did you spend $30 on? It couldn't have been the Macro Assembler cartridge (you didn't have the money) Was it the C64? Did you pick it up at a garage sale in 1996? If that's the case, how much did they want for the Macro Assembler cartridge? Why would they sell the two separately?
No, this doesn't add up at all.
How about really spend some time on teaching HTML and CSS, put them as the main characters of the class and start on Javascript later, maybe next semester?
Because it's far easier to just use a different language for the course. No new courses need to be created and no additional prerequisites are added to the current course.
A language that actually uses whitespace should.
Languages shouldn't use whitespace. I thought we had established this in the 70's
Whitespace utilization in Python uses the programmer's intuition to instantly perceive block structure.
This is the most inane defense of Python's use of whitespace I've seen to date. If I want a block, I'll delineate it myself. I don't want the interpreter 'intuiting' my intentions.
Oh, wait. It doesn't use my "intuition to instantly perceive block structure". I delineate blocks myself via indentation.
Tisk, tisk. You had me all wrapped up in your magical thinking.
This beats the heck out of scanning lines for randomly embedded (speaking spatially, now) braces.
Badly formatted code is badly formatted code. Run it through a pretty-printer -- we've had those for 30 years. Problem solved.
Mind you, it is possible to write C (and I do), for instance, nominally a free form language WRT whitespace, with meaningful whitespace. Really helps, especially later on, when you haven't seen the code for years.
Yeah, this is what virtually everyone does already. Except in that case the whitespace isn't meaningful to the compiler -- just to the programmer. This is the way it should be.
The fact that Python *requires* whitespace is simply a means to bring your intuition to the table by force, and frankly, I think it's a good idea.
It in no way brings "your intuition to the table" by force or any other means. It just makes you indent your code according to Guido's preferences.
That some folks can't, or won't, get it... that's unfortunate. For them. :)
There's nothing to get -- Whitespace is how you delineate blocks in Python. There is nothing mystical here. It does not magically "bring your intuition to the table".
It DOES, however, allow Python un-aware editors to introduce errors into your program. (Think: converting tabs to spaces and the like.) It also doesn't allow you to use whitespace to format for readability. (Yes, there are cases where not indenting according to structure will actually improve legibility. You can probably quite easily think of a few examples yourself.)
I get why people like Python. What I don't understand is why they feel the need to defend this particular aspect of the language.
Even if you think meaningful whitespace is great, it should be easy to understand why other people dislike it. You should also at least be willing to acknowledge that it can, and often does, cause problems (moving code between editors or sharing code on webpages or via email, just for starters).
Really, the only benefit I can see is that you'll never be forced to look at badly-indented Python code. Considering the problems it causes, I hardly think it's worth the trade.
THAT was what Dijkstra was complaining about.
Try actually reading the Dijkstra letter in question.
Now do you see how totally wrong you are?
I actually did think for myself when I rejected GOTO.
Did you reject GOTO as a way to forever avoid writing anything in assembly?
I actually went back and read the "GOTO considered harmful" essay.
Yeah, Dijkstra was *pissed* that Wirth changed the title. -- You know, because it misrepresents the content of the letter. (letter with original title)
Can you provide an example of when goto is appropriate -- in particular, when it's appropriate to use a goto rather than actually structured programming, or even a safer option like break, return, or throw?
Why, Yes, I can. How about an example from the Linux kernel which is very well defended by Linus Torvalds? Good enough for you?
Dijkstra was dead wrong on that (as is evident by the millions of programmers who learned BASIC on their micros in the 80's) -- He was just hating on BASIC without reason. (Really, he never gave a reason for his anti-basic screed in that speech.)
Now, you seem to be under the impression that he was railing against GOTO (he wasn't) -- you're thinking of Niklaus Wirth (who made up the "GOTO considered harmful" title to a Dijkstra letter --which Dijkstra took exception to! Read the original letter it's more about misuse of goto in structured languages than anything else.)
I challenge anyone spreading the "BASIC is the suck" or "BASIC will destroy your brain" meme to offer a legitimate reason for their beliefs. (None of this "it teaches you bad habits" rhetorical nonsense. If that's your reason, you've got to list those "bad habits" and explain how BASIC forces or encourages you to adopt them.)
So far, no one has tried. It seems that no one has ever bothered to justify their irrational belief.
What's wrong with BASIC?
You recommend Python as a teaching language instead, which I find confusing. Nothing suggests "my students will be confused" more than meaningful white space.
Remember that students aren't programmers -- blocks mean nothing to them. Try teaching iteration in a language where blocks end because the indentation level changes. (In BASIC, you have wend and next statements -- it gives the student an anchor for understanding the "jump back" part and clearly delineates the end of the block.) That bit of Python starts to look a bit magical from the students perspective -- and we DON'T want students to start accepting "magic" with the promise that they'll more fully understand later.
I do like the immediate mode interpreter, but the language itself just isn't well suited as a learning language.
For that purpose, BASIC and Logo have it beat.
Programming should NEVER begin with OO. If for no other reason than the cruft you need to add in OO languages before you can even begin to introducing basic concepts.
Objects are great when used appropriately. However, knowing how and when to use objects takes experience. Beginners by definition don't have experience.
"Pure" OO languages are even worse. When everything is an object, you don't have a choice about when to use them and, consequently, are much more likely to use them inappropriately. (Bad OO code makes you wish you were maintaining bad VB code!)
Sure, a good programmer can write great OO code, but such programmers are extremely rare -- You're not likely to find an introductory class full of competent and experienced OO programmers.
Having taught programming to many different age groups (from children to adults) I know from experience that OO is not the way to go. You can't just start off with structure -- it's totally inappropriate. They simply can't learn to structure their code until they're capable of writing some!
Teaching someone programming is a bit like teaching someone to think. A good teaching language should let you introduce all the basic concepts like direct sequencing, bounded and conditional iteration, conditional branching, variables and types, i/o, etc. without a bunch of indecipherable code cluttering up the program and confusing the student ("magic" just-ignore-this code does not aid in the learning process).
For that, the submitter is spot-on. Languages like BASIC and Logo are excellent introductory languages. All meat and no fat. I prefer Logo for children under 10, BASIC for everyone else. I've tried Java, JavaScript, C, Pascal, and even COBOL. Nothing stays out of your way like BASIC or gives you the instant satisfaction (crucial to younger children) like Logo.
I've yet to see any valid criticism of BASIC. It's been a modern procedural language for more than 25 years, yet claims of it 'mutilating the mind' or forever ruining programmers who learned it as a first language abound.
What's wrong with BASIC? More importantly, what's wrong with using BASIC as a teaching language? It's got everything you need and none of the "just ingore it for now" cruft you'll find in modern languages.
Is it too much exposure to bad VB code? I've seen very good VB code -- and some of the worst VB code ever written. It never once occurred to me to blame the language for the bad code, nor praise it for the good.
On your other suggestion, teaching JavaScript as a first language (by virtue of it's availability). I would strongly recommend against it.
See, I have actually used JavaScript to introduce computer programming. The results were ... discouraging.
See, if the students aren't already familiar with HTML and CSS you get to spend two weeks of precious class time giving them a crash-course (which will require periodic review) Then you introduce events and functions -- another day lost to NOT learning about programming. (Yes, functions are important, but not comprehensible at the level the students would be at.)
It's very frustrating for the students, who feel like they're cramming for a final exam. By the time you actually get to teach some basic concepts, they're mentally exhausted.
Add to this the quicks in the various implementations of HTML, CSS, and JS in the hands of complete beginners and you've set yourself up for the worst intro class in history.
I don't know that I'd ever use a language like Java to teach programming (as a first language) to a student regardless of age. It just has too much indecipherable cruft for the beginner. Take this, for example:
public class hello
{
public static void main(String args[])
{
system.out.println("Hello, World!");
}
}
Now, if you're trying to each basic concepts like input/output, direct sequencing, bounded and conditional iteration, and conditional branching you're going to want to ignore everything except what is in the inner block. It's totally unnecessary and is confusing for the student (who can only view those lines as magical incantations that let the program work -- and that the instructor will dutifully tell them to 'just ignore'.)
Hell, I've met lot's of Java programmers who don't know why main is declared static -- to them, it's still magical -- they learned the chant which would appease the complier, but never bothered to find out why it worked.
Languages like BASIC are excellent for learning as, if for no other reason, they don't have that sort of cruft. Just about every basic around is structured -- no line numbers required, subroutines, functions, everything you need. It makes introducing new concepts to students really easy.
That said, I'm a big supporter of using Logo to introduce programming to children under 10. Turtles are fun, and the immediate feedback you get after tying a command turns the whole process into a kind of game.
No sanely designed programming language will ever require you to label each line of code and throw and require the lines to be renumbered whenever you want to put new code in the middle.
BASIC existed long before the full-screen editor -- hell, it existed before the full-screen! Line numbers made a lot of sense back in 1964 (and for some time thereafter). If you can't figure out why this is so, just ask.
You should also note that most people designed their programs on paper *before* they entered it into the computer. They also had the good sense to leave gaps in the numbering (10 20 30 instead of 1 2 3) for possible later additions and used the hundreds or thousands place for marking off program sections.
Only a totally incompetent idiot would constantly be using renum.
Besides, line numbers haven't even been necessary since the advent of structured BASIC in the early 80's. In case you didn't notice, structured BASIC has dominated the language for the past 25 years. -- While it's true that you'll find any number of BASIC interpreters which support line numbers, you'll have a hard time finding one that requires their use.
But don't let your total ignorance of the subject keep you from forming strong opinions.
How about this example - near my GF's house, 4 officers were shot in cold blood in a coffee house. They were drinking coffee. The assailant got away, and the assailant was known to have the "death by cop" wish. One of the dead officers was a friend of hers.
That's the Lakewood shooting. I still don't feel any sympathy.
"Death by cop" is only a "thing" because the police have this nasty habit of committing senseless violent acts and cold-blooded murder while hiding behind their infamous "blue wall of silence".
Take the recent unprovoked cold-blooded murder of John T. Williams for example. (There are tons of other examples -- the vast majority of the time, the murderous cops get away with their crimes.)
(Recently released footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcxqyp2wOzE)
Mr. Williams, a partially deaf elderly man, was shot 5 times in the side by a police officer less than 30 seconds after leaving his cruiser.
The blood-thirsty officer, Ian Birk, has been on paid administrative leave since the incident.
If you're not a cop, and you kill someone, you spend time in jail awaiting trial. If you're a cop, you get paid vacation while the "incident" is "investigated" by your cop buddies.
If the police are afraid to leave the house in uniform, it's their own fault. The constant abuses perpetrated against the public -- which habitually go unpunished -- is exactly what has caused the tension between law enforcement and the citizenry.
When that tension turns violent and a cop gets hurt, I say that's fair. Perhaps they'll learn that with the power they've been granted comes responsibility and that the People will no longer tolerate the abuse of the rights and privileges we entrusted to them.
There is a big difference between learning to bang out code (most coding shops I've seen demand 10,000 lines of code a day regardless of bugs), versus true computer science and the core concepts.
Bullshit. (Unless you're in some third-world "cheap to outsource to" country with managers from 1970's)
True computer science is more than 1/0s. It is being able to deal with the layers of abstraction from the pulses of electricity running around a CPU to how a user points and fertilizes their donkeys on FarmVille.
Edgar Dijkstra also thinks you're wrong:
"computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
Wait... "fertilizes their donkeys"???
Advanced concepts of structures more complicated than a linked list -- circular buffers, heaps, stacks, caches, hash tables.
How are any of those things considered 'advanced concepts' which are 'more complicated than a linked list'? They all look like common data structures to me. Where did you study CS? Bangalore Discount Computer College?
Dealing with a hard disk. Being able to position the read/write head not just on top of the data you want, but right before it, so you get blocks before and after the read, or if handed a bunch of reads from sectors, the most optimal way to read them all, giving priority to the ones that need it the most first, and which to cache first, which others to dump.
Sounds like you based that imaginary task on The Story of Mel
I could go on. Suffice it to say, it's pretty clear that you have absolutely no idea what computer science is actually about.
Go get a job in telemarketing and stop pretending to be a 'computer scientist' when all you really are is a bad programmer.
Kind of funny how you ignored my corrections about iTunes and iPods in your reply.
If by 'corrections' you mean 'correction' then I didn't think it was worth addressing. Yeah, you don't need an apple ID -- unless you want to use the store -- which is the biggest part of the iPod/iTunes pair.
Kind of funny how you ignored most of my post.
Well, seeing as I was talking about no-name brand mp3 players
I was talking about low-cost players -- that doesn't always mean no-name -- I'd press the point, but it won't advance this discussion.
I'll go with "The pink, blue and gray ones sold at a home electronics store downtown a few months ago for SEK 299 each"
It's not hard to identify the model. Most "no name" players are re-branded versions of a generic model from a larger manufacturer (which makes devices for the purpose of re-branding). The model number is usually printed somewhere on the device. A quick google search will typically get you the manufacturer and model of the player even if all you see is the resellers "model" number.
I've seen tons of no-name players -- I've yet to see one which behaves as you describe. I'm afraid that I cannot accept your claim without evidence.
Using an iPod and/or iTunes does not require an Apple ID.
Sure, if you don't want access to the iTunes store.
You install iTunes and it takes care of everything for you.
If you think using a USB drive is a task only suited to "computer nerds" you should see non-technical users try to download and install software. :)
How do you set up playlists on your RCA player? Edit tags?
There is optional software included with "branded" low-cost players (like RCA and SanDisk) which allows you to create playlists (and perform other common tasks).
Lots of the newer low-cost players will index your songs by artist, album, genera, etc. automatically. Some even let you create playlists right on the unit. No computer required.
In my experience (5 years at the public lab) most people don't create playlists. They "just want the songs on their player." I've never seen anyone create a playlist nor has anyone ever asked me how.
After you install iTunes (it only has to happen once, or never if you have a Mac), there is no step three, you just plug in the iPod.
If you have the latest version of iTunes (or a version new enough for your particular model) If you don't have a Mac (like most people) you'll need to download and install it -- not a simple prospect for a non-technical user.
So, assuming you've got iTunes installed and updated; then you "just plug in your iPod". With the low-cost player, you can just plug it in -- No special software is required -- Not only isn't there a step 3, you don't need steps 1 and 2 either.
Again, if the user has ever used a USB drive, photo CD, digital camera, etc. then they don't need *any additional skills* -- No need to learn a new program just to get music on their mp3 player.
Remove songs?
1) Click song. 2) Hit delete.
Add new songs without dealing with "Replace existing files" dialogs?
If you're adding new songs, the 'replace existing files' dialog won't appear.
Here's a question, how do you download iTunes without dealing with the "this type of file may harm your computer" dialog?
Hell, how do you expect most people to know what drive letter their player is, and where all their music is?
In windows XP and above, plugging in their mp3 player will cause a dialog to appear allowing them to open the drive to view files or play their music with Media Player. If the user has ever used a USB drive, digital camera, etc. (like most people under 30) this isn't new to them.
If they've used their computer to do virtually anything file related (like, saving a file), they're likely already familiar with the "My Music" folder.
Hell, people seem to manage getting their pictures from their digital camera to their 'my pictures' folder and on to facebook without difficulty.
I don't see why you think that this is some super-special computer nerd knowledge.
You're mad if you think this is true. Easier for you, but you vastly overestimate the level of knowledge and desire to fuck around with their devices of the average consumer.
What do you mean "fuck around" -- plug in player, drag and drop. Just like a USB drive -- are those only for people who "desire to 'fuck around' with their devices?"
I'd say that no extra software + common skills = significantly *less* 'fucking around' than the iPod + iTunes mess.
I've had more than one user *complain* that their new iPod Touch didn't "work" as easily as their old $25 player from Big Lots.
I've dealt with an untold number of users with various mp3 players. The cheap ones have the iPod beat hands-down when it comes to ease of use for the average non-technical user. Trust me, we don't get a lot of skilled users at the public lab!
Keep in mind that iTunes doesn't exactl
Really? Because a lot of the cheap "no-name" brand mp3 players I've dealt with have had a tendency to require all sorts of weirdness (a favorite is that they need you to install a USB driver that makes the entire USB subsystem unstable as well as some neat extensions for explorer.
Yeah, you'll only need to install a driver if you're running a version of windows older than XP.
Then there are the mp3 players that only work with specific versions of MS Windows.
Can you name one? I've never seen a low-cost mp3 player that didn't function as a USB Drive. I think you're making this up.
'm not even going to bother with the rest of your comment but I'll give you a hint: You seem to have little knowledge of what you're talking about.
Have you even *read* your post?
Three hours to download and install iTunes?
I see that you have problems with reading comprehension. Nowhere in my post did I make such a claim!
What you're trying to say is that iPods are so difficult to use that a normal experience is that after three hours a person won't be up and running, but with another brand, drag-and-drop and bam, music!
In my experience, it's quite common. I run a public computer lab in the evenings 4-days a week. The ONLY problems I see people have with mp3 players are with Apple and some Sony products.
Yes, most users have a very difficult time getting started with iTunes. Try this: Grab a few music CDs and see how long it takes to get iTunes installed, get registered with your apple ID , and the songs on those cd's on the player.
For a non-technical user, it's quite the task.
The majority of <$50 mp3 players, in contrast, work just like a USB Drive. No special software needed, no registration, nothing new to learn.
Now, compare the iPod way to the cheap-mp3 player way. Put a CD in the drive, copying the music on the cd (Media player will likely automatically start this for them) then right-click the my music folder and hit send-to.
The worst non-technical user may need help with the 'send-to' part, but only if they've never used a USB drive.
Yeah, it really is 'struggle with iTunes' or 'drag-and-drop BAM music'.
Do you realize how absurd that is when you consider how many people have iPods and how many buy them again when they need a new one?
Why would sales matter when it comes to actual ease-of-use? (Do you realize how absurd that is?)
People *believe* that apple products are easy to use. If they have trouble, they don't blame apple -- they blame their own technical incompetence.
Besides, most users are completely unaware that less complicated (easier to use) products are on the market. After all, *everyone knows* that "iPods are easiest to use" and "easiest to get up and running" Why would they bother with the alternatives? The non-apple players are obviously going to be more difficult...
iPods are easiest to use,
Sorry, in ease of use, I'd bet on that cheap RCA I mentioned earlier (with only pause/play, stop, skip ahead, skip previous buttons) against any iPod on the market.
easiest to get up and running,
This is a total joke.
You've got to install iTunes, get an apple ID, etc. before you can even think about copying music onto an iPod.
Out-of-box to up and running in an hour (if you're lucky) Many hours if you're non-technical.
Just about any <$50 player? Plug it in, copy songs. Just like copying a file onto a USB drive.
Out-of-box to up and running in seconds. Minutes if you're non-technical.
easiest to get repaired
I'll grant you that -- though who gets a service plan on an mp3 player that costs them all of $30?
Though many of them come with a 30/60/90-day warranty. Just ship it to the address in the manual with a receipt for a replacement.
easiest to get assistance with.
With the simple $50 players, you really don't need assistance. They're so easy to use...
I have to configure other browsers to turn off Flash;
Have you tried NOT installing Flash? It's way easier.
Oh, it was pre-installed? Well, just uninstall it.
There isn't any need to muck about with the browser.
the iPad comes this way by default. In that way it's more advanced.
I didn't realize that NOT having features made a device 'more advanced'.
I have a rotary telephone in the hall -- I guess its lack of common features (like touch-tone) makes it one of most advanced phones around.
Can't the similar be said about Apple? Does the iPhone even have a memory card slot when almost all of their smartphone competition does? No. Are any ipod/ipad/iphone batteries user replaceable? No. Apple design fail. Right?
Well aren't you clever? Pat yourself on the back and sneer at people who don't share your opinion about Apple. I'm sure it's making the quality of your life AMAZING
So... In your opinion, not having a user-replaceable battery and not having a memory card slot is better?
Sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how 'better' in this case is a matter of opinion.
ep. Keep drinking that tap water enriched with fluoride. It's safe.
Sorry, are you from the past?
just think if you'd given your dad a Linux or Windows machine. You'd be getting at least twice the amount of tech support calls about incomprehensible error messages, hardware incompatibilities, etc.
I setup both my non-technical uncle and my wifes non-work computer with Ubuntu.
To say that Linux 'just works' is an understatement.
New printer/scanner combo? Just plug it in.
New updates? Click 'okay'.
It's been about two years in my Uncles case -- I see his wifes windows computer about every two or three months. Every time he brags about how great Ubuntu is (he hasn't had a single problem yet).
I've seen his daughters MacBook twice over the same period for various problems (not that any iFan will believe that).
My wife hasn't had a single problem with her Ubuntu machine either -- though I do have to keep the maintenance up on her work computer (which is running windows).
How quaint. Somehow these "inferior" products are outselling by orders of magnitude those things you seem to think are better...
One possible explanation is that people are just really stupid. Not just really stupid once, but repeatedly so. They buy an iPod, see some superior product (I'm not sure what though. Zune?) but then go out an buy a new iPod when their old one breaks down. And not just a few people, but millions upon millions do this?
Odd, I see the exact opposite happen. When my wife was still in college, she decided that she wanted an iPod. I got her a $40 RCA mp3 player (with an sd card slot) instead.
Out of the box, she copied her "workout" music (just a quick drag-and-drop) and was listening to her favorite tunes in about 20 minutes.
Her friend, envious of the new toy, went out and purchased the latest iPod -- you know, to have something "better". (You know the type.)
Out of the box and ... three hours later still had not managed to get music on her "superior" device. I told her that she needed to download the new version of iTunes from Apples website if she wanted it to recognize her new iPod. I don't remember if she ever managed to complete that step.
Needless to say, my wife was no longer disappointed that she didn't get a iPod and was quite happy I got her that little $40 mp3 player instead.
Her friend ended up selling her iPod and picked up the same mp3 player my wife had.
It's strange that Apple somehow happens to be the only company that manages to do this.
It really is strange. My guess is that people just aren't aware of the alternatives. Either that, or they may think Apple products are "the best" and assume that no matter what trouble they have, the alternatives must surely be worse.
Why is everyone suddenly scrambling to get out a tablet and/or tablet OS? (hint: It's not because of the tablets that have existed before the iPad.)
Oh, I know! It's because there's a lot of money to be made in low-priced tablets in the wake of the iPad hype.
Remember: Tablets are toys. There are lots of people who would like one, but won't pay Apples price for what they (correctly) see as a play-thing.
My wife wants one for social stuff and to play games on facebook but doesn't think such a device should cost more than $150. I agree with her. I'm hoping to find a deal on a low-end Android (2.1 or 2.2) tablet for Christmas.
If she found an iPad under the tree, she'd return it unopened (and then buy jewelry).