So you give up order of magnitudes in performance over the life of the running application, to save a few minutes compiling, or some disk space, for each build.
Maybe there was some charge left over in his body, that caused his arms to malfunction? Or maybe his arms software tried to dereference a NULL pointer and dumped its core.
Going with android immediately gives them relevance, and a great os. This is crunch time for them, if they make the wrong decision they will become also-rans against ios and android,
Think of it, you take out your iPhone sized phone and pull out a ipad size screen lock it in place. Make it run android and you have the ultimate internet device.
If I was about to commit to a 4 year course, I would at least want a taste of the meat of the subject, not some Programming for Dummies version.
By the time you've done two years of an A-level, you'll have picked up a lot more than 'Programming for Dummies'. I saw a lot of people on my course go from no programming ability to would-make-a-good-developer during those two years. Plus, by the time they finished they also knew whether they wanted to take it further - and, if they had the ability to do so.
Going back to the original poster, their issue was that the language chosen for them to learn initially was a complex one. Because of that experience, people who had the intelligence and enthusiasm for computing - but, lacking the experience of how alien computer languages can appear - may have been put off entirely, and the industry a worse place for it. People learn at different rates, and assuming that everyone should start on possibly the most complex mainstream language in existence smacks of elitism.
I dont understand why people think C++ is a complex language it simply supports many paradigms. It can be simple if you stick to certain areas.
Before I start, please learn how to quote posts properly. It makes dismissing your points so much easier.
C++ will thin the herd a bit, get rid of people who haven't the apptitude. Thats if the institution wants to produce the best. If you want some mediocre Java/.NET drones then go with the soft approach.
A Levels aren't about 'institutions producing the best'. They are about learning a subject to a reasonable level, before potentially going on to study it at university. Furthermore, programming is only a part of the qualification.
Stanford is the gold standard for CS education, therefore what they teach should be emulated as it produces the calibre of students who came up with Google etc.
They are also a University. A Levels are not taught at University. This isn't about trying to weed people out, it's about trying to bring them into a subject. If the post as quoted does represent your true attitude - rather than just being a clumsy attempt at a troll with Dilbertian comparisons thrown in - then elitist attitudes such as yours don't help.
If I was about to commit to a 4 year course, I would at least want a taste of the meat of the subject, not some Programming for Dummies version.
This is why the industry is littered with morons who haven't heard or read Knuth, and think OO is the only way to code.
Err no, the fact that only 3 out of 25 could get to grips with C++ tells us that the class what made up of lower than average students.
It tells me that the class is not made up of people with previous programming experience, but rather people who needed to be taught programing concepts first, not a specific programming language.
C++ will thin the herd a bit, get rid of people who haven't the apptitude. Thats if the institution wants to produce the best. If you want some mediocre Java/.NET drones then go with the soft approach.
And.Net should be avoided, from what I can see Stanford is one of the top CS Unis and in their first year of CS they teach, Java, C (some Assembly), C++, Scheme Python. Those are the langugues that you should know.
Just to clarify, are you stating "Don't learn this, because I think they teach different things in a University in another country"? I quite honestly do not understand the point that you're making.
Stanford is the gold standard for CS education, therefore what they teach should be emulated as it produces the calibre of students who came up with Google etc.
My A level course taught Pascal. My degree covered Modula-2, Mathematica, Miranda, Prolog, 68000 assembler, and a few more I can't remember offhand. I don't think not having been taught any of these at A level caused me any problems.
Agreed. We had a horrid time in college (UK) - the first year we were taught C++ (which about 3 of the 25 managed to get a grasp of). The second year the college forced us to instead do VB6, and we can all guess what effect that had...
It would be much better for students (and future prospects for any UK programmers) if they chucked VB6 also. Perhaps for some.net language.
Err no, the fact that only 3 out of 25 could get to grips with C++ tells us that the class what made up of lower than average students.
And.Net should be avoided, from what I can see Stanford is one of the top CS Unis and in their first year of CS they teach,
Java, C (some Assembly), C++, Scheme Python. Those are the langugues that you should know.
True, but does antivirus spy on you and record your keystrokes, maybe while your logging in your CC number, then use your CC number on a dodgy porn site, then the police arrive at your door and your reputation is ruined as well as your life because you get 10 years in the slammer?
I was taking from a purely legal viewpoint, if Im found not guilty then by law im innocent (even if I did do it).However im aware that the justice system isnt exactly perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
So you give up order of magnitudes in performance over the life of the running application, to save a few minutes compiling, or some disk space, for each build.
C is portable, everything with a CPU has a C compiler.
Google should just buy Oracle, then it could develop OO etc to kill MS Office.
Yeah like all the C libraries out there?
Whats wrong with C, why do people need a runtime to hold their hands. It makes everything slower.
Larry Elison, to become the most hated man in the World.
Glasses is the word, the rest is detail.
One word, Glasses, with screens build in.
Maybe there was some charge left over in his body, that caused his arms to malfunction? Or maybe his arms software tried to dereference a NULL pointer and dumped its core.
Going with android immediately gives them relevance, and a great os. This is crunch time for them, if they make the wrong decision they will become also-rans against ios and android,
Think of it, you take out your iPhone sized phone and pull out a ipad size screen lock it in place. Make it run android and you have the ultimate internet device.
If I was about to commit to a 4 year course, I would at least want a taste of the meat of the subject, not some Programming for Dummies version.
By the time you've done two years of an A-level, you'll have picked up a lot more than 'Programming for Dummies'. I saw a lot of people on my course go from no programming ability to would-make-a-good-developer during those two years. Plus, by the time they finished they also knew whether they wanted to take it further - and, if they had the ability to do so.
Going back to the original poster, their issue was that the language chosen for them to learn initially was a complex one. Because of that experience, people who had the intelligence and enthusiasm for computing - but, lacking the experience of how alien computer languages can appear - may have been put off entirely, and the industry a worse place for it. People learn at different rates, and assuming that everyone should start on possibly the most complex mainstream language in existence smacks of elitism.
I dont understand why people think C++ is a complex language it simply supports many paradigms. It can be simple if you stick to certain areas.
Before I start, please learn how to quote posts properly. It makes dismissing your points so much easier.
C++ will thin the herd a bit, get rid of people who haven't the apptitude. Thats if the institution wants to produce the best. If you want some mediocre Java/.NET drones then go with the soft approach.
A Levels aren't about 'institutions producing the best'. They are about learning a subject to a reasonable level, before potentially going on to study it at university. Furthermore, programming is only a part of the qualification.
Stanford is the gold standard for CS education, therefore what they teach should be emulated as it produces the calibre of students who came up with Google etc.
They are also a University. A Levels are not taught at University. This isn't about trying to weed people out, it's about trying to bring them into a subject. If the post as quoted does represent your true attitude - rather than just being a clumsy attempt at a troll with Dilbertian comparisons thrown in - then elitist attitudes such as yours don't help.
If I was about to commit to a 4 year course, I would at least want a taste of the meat of the subject, not some Programming for Dummies version. This is why the industry is littered with morons who haven't heard or read Knuth, and think OO is the only way to code.
Err no, the fact that only 3 out of 25 could get to grips with C++ tells us that the class what made up of lower than average students.
It tells me that the class is not made up of people with previous programming experience, but rather people who needed to be taught programing concepts first, not a specific programming language.
C++ will thin the herd a bit, get rid of people who haven't the apptitude. Thats if the institution wants to produce the best. If you want some mediocre Java/.NET drones then go with the soft approach.
And .Net should be avoided, from what I can see Stanford is one of the top CS Unis and in their first year of CS they teach, Java, C (some Assembly), C++, Scheme Python. Those are the langugues that you should know.
Just to clarify, are you stating "Don't learn this, because I think they teach different things in a University in another country"? I quite honestly do not understand the point that you're making.
Stanford is the gold standard for CS education, therefore what they teach should be emulated as it produces the calibre of students who came up with Google etc.
My A level course taught Pascal. My degree covered Modula-2, Mathematica, Miranda, Prolog, 68000 assembler, and a few more I can't remember offhand. I don't think not having been taught any of these at A level caused me any problems.
Agreed. We had a horrid time in college (UK) - the first year we were taught C++ (which about 3 of the 25 managed to get a grasp of). The second year the college forced us to instead do VB6, and we can all guess what effect that had... It would be much better for students (and future prospects for any UK programmers) if they chucked VB6 also. Perhaps for some .net language.
Err no, the fact that only 3 out of 25 could get to grips with C++ tells us that the class what made up of lower than average students. And .Net should be avoided, from what I can see Stanford is one of the top CS Unis and in their first year of CS they teach,
Java, C (some Assembly), C++, Scheme Python. Those are the langugues that you should know.
Silverlight anyone..... thought not.
Ruby? Python? If I want the app to take the term of my natural life to load then I will use these, what we need is Haskell.
They should build a console, it will be white, it will look sleek and stylish and the most powerful hardware ever. iPlay!!!
Why doesn't google make it work in the UK for addresses and phone numbers.
None I heard somewhere it has rfid tags that track my movements.
True, but does antivirus spy on you and record your keystrokes, maybe while your logging in your CC number, then use your CC number on a dodgy porn site, then the police arrive at your door and your reputation is ruined as well as your life because you get 10 years in the slammer?
I was taking from a purely legal viewpoint, if Im found not guilty then by law im innocent (even if I did do it).However im aware that the justice system isnt exactly perfect.
but Not Guilty = Innocent