In order to use the mail forwarding service, however, you have to agree to receive monthly advertisement emails from Yahoo!. So, you still get the advertisements, just not on the screen in all their colourful, blinking glory.
I've never worked for anybody who didn't know and respect the value of software engineering. I guess that's because I've only worked for myself and for small companies. My current company was founded by an engineer, and this experience here is very rewarding.
We do, however, have a marketing department that, at times, tries to tell us engineers what to do. This hardly goes over well, and I certainly agree with the assertion that if a manager is a techie, then the views of those managing will change.
When I was in high school, the computer science classes taught C/C++. In fact, the curriculum had been switched to C/C++ from Pascal just a year before I took CS-I.
In CS-I, we learned how programming basics. In CS-II AP, we got into pointers and, near the end of the year, barely scraped object oriented programming. I feel that, when it comes to computer science fundamentals and theory, basics and pointers are far more important than OOP: the simplest reason for this being the fact that all languages support direct memory access in some way, whereas there is only a minority now that supports OOP.
Education in programming should be presented ground-up. This means that students should learn about things like memory addresses and offsets long before they learn about the Java API or MFC or anything like that.
In college, I took a course on Java. I found the coursework rather interesting, but the professor presented it in a manner which did not stress computer fundamentals. The course was, essentially, a series of lectures on a modified C++ with very heavy emphasis on OOP. This is perfectly fine for those who already know what goes on inside a computer, but I noticed that there were no prerequisites for the course. Something a little more basic (even an Assembly course) should have been presented to the students before having the option of taking that Java course.
In effect, programming should be taught beginning with the very bottom of the CS hierarchy. Interrupts and offsets should be discussed first, and OOP and APIs should be taught near the end.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to use the mail forwarding service, however, you have to agree to receive monthly advertisement emails from Yahoo!. So, you still get the advertisements, just not on the screen in all their colourful, blinking glory.
But not because it's got two girls kissing, right? :)
It was imaged using adaptive optics ... that correct for the blurring effect of the atmosphere using deformable mirrors.
:)
Leet. Sounds like they've got hardware Photoshop filters.
I've never worked for anybody who didn't know and respect the value of software engineering. I guess that's because I've only worked for myself and for small companies. My current company was founded by an engineer, and this experience here is very rewarding. We do, however, have a marketing department that, at times, tries to tell us engineers what to do. This hardly goes over well, and I certainly agree with the assertion that if a manager is a techie, then the views of those managing will change.
When I was in high school, the computer science classes taught C/C++. In fact, the curriculum had been switched to C/C++ from Pascal just a year before I took CS-I.
In CS-I, we learned how programming basics. In CS-II AP, we got into pointers and, near the end of the year, barely scraped object oriented programming. I feel that, when it comes to computer science fundamentals and theory, basics and pointers are far more important than OOP: the simplest reason for this being the fact that all languages support direct memory access in some way, whereas there is only a minority now that supports OOP.
Education in programming should be presented ground-up. This means that students should learn about things like memory addresses and offsets long before they learn about the Java API or MFC or anything like that.
In college, I took a course on Java. I found the coursework rather interesting, but the professor presented it in a manner which did not stress computer fundamentals. The course was, essentially, a series of lectures on a modified C++ with very heavy emphasis on OOP. This is perfectly fine for those who already know what goes on inside a computer, but I noticed that there were no prerequisites for the course. Something a little more basic (even an Assembly course) should have been presented to the students before having the option of taking that Java course.
In effect, programming should be taught beginning with the very bottom of the CS hierarchy. Interrupts and offsets should be discussed first, and OOP and APIs should be taught near the end.