I'm not talking about his creations, although I don't think that creating the GPL is something to be proud of.:-P He gets all the credit in the world for emacs, though. I like it quite a bit.
But what I am talking about is his absolutely bugfuck-sad public behavior. A complete inability to understand and a habit of disregarding the opinions and feelings of others in a professional and personal context? That's pretty sad.
Seeing as how that was basically what I started with, I agree with you. In my experience actually teaching kids now, though, they go "it's a bunch of lines on the screen, this is retarded." Just being able to create a window, a few buttons, and manipulate some visual stuff seems to help a lot.
Well, I dunno. I started by writing games in QBasic when I was seven or eight. But I had had my own PC since the age of four or so, and it was a time when the DOS prompt was business-as-usual (meaning that I was still impressable by it, unlike today's kids).
You're not going to hex-editing ROMs of anybody's "favorite games" these days, because most of them aren't SNES/Genesis fans. Try doing that on a Wii or XBox 360 and get back to me. I know a bunch of the ROM-editing community. What they do isn't remotely novel, nor is it very good at actually teaching programming rather than editing others' work.
Learning a highly structured language first ingrains good habits, to boot. You might say you know C and C++, but I'd bet dollars to donuts you don't have a good command of higher-level concepts which are generally better picked up in either functional or object-oriented languages (and C++ is not an object-oriented language in the sense of Java or C#--I don't think Python really qualifies, either, as I don't think you can reflect). I've taught a number of kids, and a couple college intro classes. Starting at a high level helps both drive interest (because they're seeing things get done) as well as provide a foundation on which you can build the particulars and little bits that are filled in by languages closer to the metal.
Obviously - but the idea is to get the hook in, inducing them to want to learn that stuff.
Making it instantly accessible and what they're doing reflected in the application is the key. I've taught a lot of kids, as well as a couple college intro courses, and this method has served me well.
This is a joke, right? If not, you're even dumber than the average mental-midget Anonymous Coward.
Here's a hint: even the process of memory management is a bad idea for introductory programming. Do you really think that externing into other libraries is going to do anything except confuse the shit out of somebody?
The fact that you call yourself a "software engineer" makes me very dubious of anything you claim.
And, frankly, I doubt that anyone with a "mastery of assembly language" can see through Lisp. If you're going to make that claim, I'll gladly provide a code snippet and ask for the assembly translation of it.:-)
I don't think that's really a problem. I think the problem is never having to deal with other people's code, and therefore being unable to understand it.
When I taught it three years later, we still used Scheme, but the body count was a lot lower because the New Media students had had the computer science course removed from the requirements and replaced with the proper programming-for-nonmajors course, as they should have been from the start.
I don't think many programmers have. I certainly have not. I have never and will never refer to myself as a software engineer. I'm a developer, or a programmer.
I don't think that software development can be done with the necessary rigor to be called engineering.
So you recommend that a fifteen-year-old who has never programmed before do something that will be uninteresting, unimpressive, and likely to turn him off from programming?
You have to sink the hook by showing him how to do something cool. Then you backfill and cover the important low-lying stuff.
As somebody who makes a good chunk of his living off PHP, I would question whether this is true on a large scale. I mean, it has nothing to do with knowing assembly language. It has to do with understanding algorithms, which can be learned with any language. I don't need to understand the machine code (though I am reasonably conversant with x86 and ARM/Thumb) to realize that, at worst, array_unique() has to loop through the array n^2 times. That has nothing to do with assembly. It has to do with understanding what you're doing and how it would be done.
The black box programmers are certainly an issue, of course. But assembly doesn't help you magically understand this stuff. Writing a function to do it in any language, and understanding Big-Oh and the like, will.
The problem with assembler, little Anonymous Coward, is that it doesn't let you do anything without a significant amount of work, and what you can do is unlikely to impress a fifteen-year-old kid just getting into programming.
Being able to print a few lines to the screen won't impress that kid and make him want to keep programming. Give him a language that can easily create GUIs, so he can see his stuff in action. To do this, I'd recommend an object-oriented language, maybe Python (though I personally detest it) or C# (which is a very nice language with very nice tools).
You're an idiot. The majority of schools use Java and C, with some Lisp or Scheme to cover functional programming (generally at the university level).
I'd say they should be using Python and C#, with some Ocaml or F#, but since I dared suggest Microsoft tools (even ones with viable open-source alternatives) I'm going to get bitched at.
But the underlying argument is not purism vs. pragmatism.
No, it's easily-influenced idiots who believe Roy Shitowitz when he yammers on about NOVELL IS EBIL and MONO IS TERRIBLE!!!111. Never mind that there is legal promissory estoppel protecting Mono these days, it's still EVIL!!!111.
There is no real pragmatism in putting tomboy or any other particular mono-dependent app in the default install.
What pragmatism is there in putting an application that isn't as good as its competition into the default install? Gnote certainly isn't as good as Tomboy, and Rhythmbox edges out Banshee only by a few points and that's not likely to last. The pragmatic argument is "this works really, really well and benefits our users." Maybe it's harder to wedge everything into the disc - oh well, that's their job to figure out.
I personally think there are too many things in most of the default installs (plural) as it is.
If there is an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink install, then, definitely, tomboy and mono would belong in the default install of that.
Yes, there is an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink install. It's called Ubuntu. Debian, or Ubuntu Server, exist for you to customize the way you like it.
As stated in the summary, purism is what gave us GNOME.
No, a lack of any halfway decent desktop environment, and the convenient creation of a widget toolkit in a different application, led to GNOME.
Purism is also responsible for getting Qt under the GPL.
Except that it's not under the GPL, and never was; while it was at one time dual-licensed under the GPL even when dual-licensed it was commercially driven outside of KDE (the developers of Qt were still being paid by commercial licensing). Your purist fuckery "lost" because Nokia realized that more people would actually use Qt if it was LGPL.
Purism is what gave us gzip and PNG. Instead of just complaining about LZW, developers made completely new formats, and generated enough momentum around them to virtually replace their patent-encumbered predecessors, all the while creating superior technologies in the process.
Where the fuck does purism come into this? Creating something to get around a patent issue is recognizing the pragmatic realities of the situation and nothing more.
Purism is what gives us Web standards. The Browser Wars were one of the worst times in Web history because everyone was being too pragmatic. Browser vendors were only interested in locking in users to gain market share, and Web developers were only interested in coding for one browser and just pointing everyone who wasn't using that one to a download link for it. The Web is becoming a better place because of the growing purism among both browsers and developers, not in spite of it.
Horseshit...again. Standards were developed--and adhered to--primarily because the only way to beat Internet Explorer was everyone else to band together and force both standards compliance and develop better browsers than IE. They did, and IE had to play catchup. Pragmatism in action.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft should put the top three on there. IE8, Firefox 3.5, and Chrome.
Fuck you, Opera.
I'm 21 and they taught us to use cursive. We were not allowed to print through ninth grade.
I'm not talking about his creations, although I don't think that creating the GPL is something to be proud of. :-P He gets all the credit in the world for emacs, though. I like it quite a bit.
But what I am talking about is his absolutely bugfuck-sad public behavior. A complete inability to understand and a habit of disregarding the opinions and feelings of others in a professional and personal context? That's pretty sad.
No no, Feynman is crazy and brilliant. Stallman is crazy and sad.
And you aren't going to actually keep a kid's attention doing that. Try to keep up.
I wouldn't call them "masters" of anything in particular. I would call them gods. :)
Seeing as how that was basically what I started with, I agree with you. In my experience actually teaching kids now, though, they go "it's a bunch of lines on the screen, this is retarded." Just being able to create a window, a few buttons, and manipulate some visual stuff seems to help a lot.
I didn't miss the point, I laughed at his lack of one.
Something doesn't become "free" because your sexist pig of a GNU/leader says it is.
Well, I dunno. I started by writing games in QBasic when I was seven or eight. But I had had my own PC since the age of four or so, and it was a time when the DOS prompt was business-as-usual (meaning that I was still impressable by it, unlike today's kids).
You're not going to hex-editing ROMs of anybody's "favorite games" these days, because most of them aren't SNES/Genesis fans. Try doing that on a Wii or XBox 360 and get back to me. I know a bunch of the ROM-editing community. What they do isn't remotely novel, nor is it very good at actually teaching programming rather than editing others' work.
Learning a highly structured language first ingrains good habits, to boot. You might say you know C and C++, but I'd bet dollars to donuts you don't have a good command of higher-level concepts which are generally better picked up in either functional or object-oriented languages (and C++ is not an object-oriented language in the sense of Java or C#--I don't think Python really qualifies, either, as I don't think you can reflect). I've taught a number of kids, and a couple college intro classes. Starting at a high level helps both drive interest (because they're seeing things get done) as well as provide a foundation on which you can build the particulars and little bits that are filled in by languages closer to the metal.
Obviously - but the idea is to get the hook in, inducing them to want to learn that stuff.
Making it instantly accessible and what they're doing reflected in the application is the key. I've taught a lot of kids, as well as a couple college intro courses, and this method has served me well.
You're confusing choice with freedom.
I laughed. Hard.
This is a joke, right? If not, you're even dumber than the average mental-midget Anonymous Coward.
Here's a hint: even the process of memory management is a bad idea for introductory programming. Do you really think that externing into other libraries is going to do anything except confuse the shit out of somebody?
The fact that you call yourself a "software engineer" makes me very dubious of anything you claim.
And, frankly, I doubt that anyone with a "mastery of assembly language" can see through Lisp. If you're going to make that claim, I'll gladly provide a code snippet and ask for the assembly translation of it. :-)
I don't think that's really a problem. I think the problem is never having to deal with other people's code, and therefore being unable to understand it.
Did it occur to you that the rest of the world might not do as where you are from?
Anybody who deals with AP or IB standards for sending kids to American colleges is probably dealing with their standards
Although I envy you for being able to actually use C# for schoolwork. Java gives me gas.
You are a bad man.
Psst. I was a student, you fucking imbecile.
When I taught it three years later, we still used Scheme, but the body count was a lot lower because the New Media students had had the computer science course removed from the requirements and replaced with the proper programming-for-nonmajors course, as they should have been from the start.
I don't think many programmers have. I certainly have not. I have never and will never refer to myself as a software engineer. I'm a developer, or a programmer.
I don't think that software development can be done with the necessary rigor to be called engineering.
So you recommend that a fifteen-year-old who has never programmed before do something that will be uninteresting, unimpressive, and likely to turn him off from programming?
You have to sink the hook by showing him how to do something cool. Then you backfill and cover the important low-lying stuff.
This is very, very true. We lost a ton of kids in my 100-level programming class because they couldn't "get" Scheme.
That was a fun class. Got to learn a new language and do almost no work that semester...
As somebody who makes a good chunk of his living off PHP, I would question whether this is true on a large scale. I mean, it has nothing to do with knowing assembly language. It has to do with understanding algorithms, which can be learned with any language. I don't need to understand the machine code (though I am reasonably conversant with x86 and ARM/Thumb) to realize that, at worst, array_unique() has to loop through the array n^2 times. That has nothing to do with assembly. It has to do with understanding what you're doing and how it would be done.
The black box programmers are certainly an issue, of course. But assembly doesn't help you magically understand this stuff. Writing a function to do it in any language, and understanding Big-Oh and the like, will.
The problem with assembler, little Anonymous Coward, is that it doesn't let you do anything without a significant amount of work, and what you can do is unlikely to impress a fifteen-year-old kid just getting into programming.
Being able to print a few lines to the screen won't impress that kid and make him want to keep programming. Give him a language that can easily create GUIs, so he can see his stuff in action. To do this, I'd recommend an object-oriented language, maybe Python (though I personally detest it) or C# (which is a very nice language with very nice tools).
You're an idiot. The majority of schools use Java and C, with some Lisp or Scheme to cover functional programming (generally at the university level).
I'd say they should be using Python and C#, with some Ocaml or F#, but since I dared suggest Microsoft tools (even ones with viable open-source alternatives) I'm going to get bitched at.
But the underlying argument is not purism vs. pragmatism.
No, it's easily-influenced idiots who believe Roy Shitowitz when he yammers on about NOVELL IS EBIL and MONO IS TERRIBLE!!!111. Never mind that there is legal promissory estoppel protecting Mono these days, it's still EVIL!!!111.
There is no real pragmatism in putting tomboy or any other particular mono-dependent app in the default install.
What pragmatism is there in putting an application that isn't as good as its competition into the default install? Gnote certainly isn't as good as Tomboy, and Rhythmbox edges out Banshee only by a few points and that's not likely to last. The pragmatic argument is "this works really, really well and benefits our users." Maybe it's harder to wedge everything into the disc - oh well, that's their job to figure out.
I personally think there are too many things in most of the default installs (plural) as it is.
If there is an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink install, then, definitely, tomboy and mono would belong in the default install of that.
Yes, there is an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink install. It's called Ubuntu. Debian, or Ubuntu Server, exist for you to customize the way you like it.
[Your post is fucking idiotic.
As stated in the summary, purism is what gave us GNOME.
No, a lack of any halfway decent desktop environment, and the convenient creation of a widget toolkit in a different application, led to GNOME.
Purism is also responsible for getting Qt under the GPL.
Except that it's not under the GPL, and never was; while it was at one time dual-licensed under the GPL even when dual-licensed it was commercially driven outside of KDE (the developers of Qt were still being paid by commercial licensing). Your purist fuckery "lost" because Nokia realized that more people would actually use Qt if it was LGPL.
Purism is what gave us gzip and PNG. Instead of just complaining about LZW, developers made completely new formats, and generated enough momentum around them to virtually replace their patent-encumbered predecessors, all the while creating superior technologies in the process.
Where the fuck does purism come into this? Creating something to get around a patent issue is recognizing the pragmatic realities of the situation and nothing more.
Purism is what gives us Web standards. The Browser Wars were one of the worst times in Web history because everyone was being too pragmatic. Browser vendors were only interested in locking in users to gain market share, and Web developers were only interested in coding for one browser and just pointing everyone who wasn't using that one to a download link for it. The Web is becoming a better place because of the growing purism among both browsers and developers, not in spite of it.
Horseshit...again. Standards were developed--and adhered to--primarily because the only way to beat Internet Explorer was everyone else to band together and force both standards compliance and develop better browsers than IE. They did, and IE had to play catchup. Pragmatism in action.