I probably focused too heavily on languages in the original post.
What about technology in general: networking, security, architecture, programming languages, libraries, testing, operating systems, analysis and design, distributed computing, concurrent programming, artificial intelligence, algorithms.
From the parts of the thread I've read, I suggest that hands-on experience (practice) is essential to learn how to do any of these things well. But what about the content? What the best was to learn about these technologies (with the idea that you're going to use them)?
I hear a few things here (and in some of the replies).
First, with the understanding that some programming languages emphasize/embrace different paradigms (object oriented, functional, etc.), languages are similar enough that -- within a paradigm -- moving to a new language is not / should not be hard. Related to this, learning good representative examples of a paradigm is a good thing. Also related, the challenge of learning a new "language" is not the language, per se, but the libraries, tools, etc.
Second, the challenge is not so much learning the language as learning how to use the language correctly. Thinking along this line, an educational environment that encouraged learning via hands-on work on existing "good" code, or via well thought out projects that required consideration of security, or performance, or other typically non-functional requirements, or even via review and study of standards (the C++ ARM or whatever is relevant for Ruby of Java) would be a good thing.
Does this capture your way of thinking about this?
Good question. The content came from the books, blogs, etc. Skill came from putting the information into practice. In your case, was there any educational value from the college classroom/coursework, or could you have done it on your own (with appropriate projects, of course)?
Your comment about projects strikes me as very important, and was something I missed when I put the original post together. Going autobiographical for a moment...
I learned about C as a Freshman in college from a K&R book I picked up. But I taught myself C by building things. Immediately prior to that, I owned a series of Sinclair computers and taught myself Basic from the manual(s), while trying to build things. Back to college again, I took a course in the C programming language eventually, but by the time I went to grad school I was interested in C++ and then Java. In both cases, I was back to books but still building things. Finally, Ruby on Rails -- the online API and lots and lots of blogs, but all guided by the need to build something.
So, I clearly trained myself by doing. I now have to wonder, however, how complete that training is -- focused as it was on the immediate goal of project needs and driven by ad hoc knowledge searching (via blogs).
The classroom context provides the motivation to practice and therefore to learn. Is the structure defined by assignments and tests, or by the community of learners in the classroom? Thinking back on my experience, assignments (and the resulting grade) provided the "stick", especially when I wasn't particularly self motivated. But I also remember thinking, on occasion, "Why am I cramming this stuff into my head? I'm going to forget it 24-hours after the test." Regular thoughts like that seemed to lead up to me leaving graduate school (not in CS, however).
Skimming through the thread, here, I see the concept of "practice" comes up frequently. Without reading everything, I do suspect that will be the consensus for learning. However, I'm now very interested in thoughts on the community aspect of the college classroom. Helpful or not?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, okay. That would be cool.
Lisp, okay! Logo, ????
I probably focused too heavily on languages in the original post.
What about technology in general: networking, security, architecture, programming languages, libraries, testing, operating systems, analysis and design, distributed computing, concurrent programming, artificial intelligence, algorithms.
From the parts of the thread I've read, I suggest that hands-on experience (practice) is essential to learn how to do any of these things well. But what about the content? What the best was to learn about these technologies (with the idea that you're going to use them)?
I hear a few things here (and in some of the replies).
First, with the understanding that some programming languages emphasize/embrace different paradigms (object oriented, functional, etc.), languages are similar enough that -- within a paradigm -- moving to a new language is not / should not be hard. Related to this, learning good representative examples of a paradigm is a good thing. Also related, the challenge of learning a new "language" is not the language, per se, but the libraries, tools, etc.
Second, the challenge is not so much learning the language as learning how to use the language correctly. Thinking along this line, an educational environment that encouraged learning via hands-on work on existing "good" code, or via well thought out projects that required consideration of security, or performance, or other typically non-functional requirements, or even via review and study of standards (the C++ ARM or whatever is relevant for Ruby of Java) would be a good thing.
Does this capture your way of thinking about this?
Good question. The content came from the books, blogs, etc. Skill came from putting the information into practice. In your case, was there any educational value from the college classroom/coursework, or could you have done it on your own (with appropriate projects, of course)?
Your comment about projects strikes me as very important, and was something I missed when I put the original post together. Going autobiographical for a moment...
I learned about C as a Freshman in college from a K&R book I picked up. But I taught myself C by building things. Immediately prior to that, I owned a series of Sinclair computers and taught myself Basic from the manual(s), while trying to build things. Back to college again, I took a course in the C programming language eventually, but by the time I went to grad school I was interested in C++ and then Java. In both cases, I was back to books but still building things. Finally, Ruby on Rails -- the online API and lots and lots of blogs, but all guided by the need to build something.
So, I clearly trained myself by doing. I now have to wonder, however, how complete that training is -- focused as it was on the immediate goal of project needs and driven by ad hoc knowledge searching (via blogs).
Language Learner Leads in Low-Q?
The classroom context provides the motivation to practice and therefore to learn. Is the structure defined by assignments and tests, or by the community of learners in the classroom? Thinking back on my experience, assignments (and the resulting grade) provided the "stick", especially when I wasn't particularly self motivated. But I also remember thinking, on occasion, "Why am I cramming this stuff into my head? I'm going to forget it 24-hours after the test." Regular thoughts like that seemed to lead up to me leaving graduate school (not in CS, however).
Skimming through the thread, here, I see the concept of "practice" comes up frequently. Without reading everything, I do suspect that will be the consensus for learning. However, I'm now very interested in thoughts on the community aspect of the college classroom. Helpful or not?