I see a lot of people saying that we should start with assembly. I personally don't feel this may not be the best solution. Starting with a higher level (although not a 4GL) language will help students see patterns of language use. Then when they are taught assemble, they can be taught how these patterns are implemented (like how a function call is made in asm). If you start with asm, then you have to teach procedural concepts that are better taught in a procedural language.
But since I didn't take the asm first route I'll never know. I learned asm after learning BASIC and C and while learning C++.
The analogy still holds. You can do all of the order analysis of a program you want, but ultimately it's the real execution of the program that proves you right or wrong. Physics predicts correctly things that cannot be observed with the technology at the time. Computer Science is no different.
Just because they don't come to discuss the material doesn't mean they aren't discussing it. I never once went to a TA, because I had my own group of friends to discuss the class concepts with.
This really shouldn't matter in the long run. If you are being taught procedural and OO concepts, then you will be able to generalize them to any language. My univ use Pascal in first year for procedural stuff and Modula-3 in third year for OO. Everything I learned in Modula-3 generalized very easily to Java.
In fact, everything I did in Pascal generalized to Java as well. We were doing ADTs and proving the order of algorithms. This is the stuff I think first year students should be taught because all of that sticks with you for the rest of your schooling. It's hard to take a course on algoithms when you don't understand the reasons why a Binary tree can be slower than a AVL.
CS as it is today should be taught as a branch of applied mathematics, which it really is.
You mean like physics.
And FWIW, my CS degree was taught by the Faculty of Methematics at the University of Waterloo. There aren't many Universities that you can get a BMath at, though.
This makes no sense to me. Whitespace should be significant, but this code shouldn't break because you took the if out. Consider the following:
if (a>1)
{
System.out.println("x");
}
then
// if (a>1)
{
System.out.println("x");
}
Neither f the above break. Just because I am declaring a new block for no reason, doesn't imply to me that the compiler should break. In fact, I use this feature of C style languages all the time to block off the scope of local variables, thus making the code easier to read, like thus:
// switch a and b
{
int tmp=a;
b=a;
a=tmp;
}
I don't want the tmp varable scoped past this switch, so I limit it's scope. I also use the comment at the top of the block to make the whole thing look prettier.
2) Python is defined by it's implementation. There's no standard for developers to rely on. That means ultimately you are at the mercy of the good or bad judgement of the Python team.
While there may no standards body stamping an official document, this statement also applies to Perl, TCL, and many other popular scripting languages in its class, as well as Java.
I have to differ with you brining Java into this comment. While there is no external standard body for Java, Java is not "defined by it's implementation". The Java Language spec has been found to differ from the behavious of javac many times, and it was javac, not the JLS that changed. Jikes uses the JLS, not javac as it's reference. Javac is only a reference implementation, in that it mostly conforms to the JLS.
And of course I do work with them, but the powers that be won't let us use Python on the basis that it's not a skill you see on resumes as standard yet. Thank God for The Corporate Mentality, no?
You know, sometime things that don't make sense to you actually do make sense. While it would be nice for us if management let us pick whatever tools and languages we want, the fact of the matter it that they are going to have to have people maintain this system long after we leave. It would be a very bad thing for them if a developer created a successful product in Python, and then left. Trying to find a replacement would be very hard, and even when they do, how would they even be able to test his actual skill in Python (with the resident Python expert gone). After hiring someone, and he says the project need a rewrite, how could they tell if he's snoballing or not? In this case, I agree with the powers that be. Sometime the best tool for the job doesn't include technological factors.
It's not that it's hard. It was just easier. Usenet binaries groups actually contained what was advertised in the group name. Sure you can get porn fron alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.redheads, but you can't get redheads. It's all advertising. Plus, many ISPs don't carry those groups anymore, mostly because the spam does take up so much room.
The ring (at least in Canada) is iron. It started because of an iron bridge that collapsed, killing tens of people, due to shoddy engineering. The original iron rings were made from the iron of that original bridge. All that iron is gone now, though.
I disagree that the market is flooded. I just think it's flooded with crappy people. The company I work for is a solutions center (Oakscape) attached to a recruiting firm (CMC). CMC, has the developers in the solutions center do the technical interviews for the people they place, so I do quite a few interviews of "J2EE developers". They are given grades (A-F) in their apptitude in Object Oriented Concepts, Swing, JSP, Servlets, EJB, and SQL. These are then put together as a final letter grade.
The questions I ask aren't hard, they are just supposed to show me that the person really has worked with the technology enough. But most people really do poorly, even though they have experience. They can't list a couple classes from the javax.servlet.http package. They don't know what a RequestDispatcher does. They don't know how to pass informatin from a Servlet to a JSP that you dispatch to, they don't know what web.xml is, they don't know anything about tag libs. They have no understanding of EJBs beyond the fact that there are two main types (Session and Entity).
They are often okay with SQL, which is good, although I did have a certified Oracle DBA who was unable to do a two table join.
It's okay to know know every one of these things. You won't get a perfect grade, but you can miss a couple of these and still get a B- in overall J2EE (minimum to be hired in the solutions center, but for recruiting it depends on what the hiring company wants). But every candidate I've had will maybe get one out of the above correct, and those are just the easy questions. I can't even move on to the harder ones, because it's obvious they don't have the basis.
Now that you put it that way, it really sounds like price dumping. If all the big players are doing it, it doesn't mean that there isn't a barrier of entry for a smaller vendor.
This may work for what I would use it for or it may not. I do a lot of copy and pasting and the pasting is usually pasted multiple times. I know that you don't alway pop, that isn't my problem. Thinking about what I was talking about, I could copy two things, and then paste them over and over again. With the stackboard, I can't. Also, I would have to copy in reverse order that I wanted to paste in, because the cursor will inevitably be at the end of my paste. I think doing that would be a little cumbersome (not unusable, but I would prefer to copy in the order I'm reading my code, not in the reverse order). I still feel that appending would suit me better, but not having used a stackboard system, I don't know how much I would run up against it's limitations. I do know that XCV good enough, but can be better.
This is very valid. If the police do not need a warrant, then there must be enough reason to believe there is no privacy in the area, so it should be fine to have it always broadcast everywhere. Would make finding out if your spouse is cheating, your kids are smoking/where they said they'd be, etc a lot easier, too. In addition, you wouldn't have to worry as much about the police covering something up.
The cost of this would be pretty prohibative, though, and it may aide in crime, because with good planning, a criminal can sit at home and plan a robbery using the very cameras that are supposed to protect.
This isn't talking about filtering in the home. It's talking about mandatory filtering in the schools. Do you think that schools should pay for HBO and Cinemax and leave access to those channels unrestricted? Do you think schools should pay for internet connections and leave access to that unrestricted? What about libraries? This isn't an easy topic. There are million edges to this dicotomy (a megacotomy?). Filtering software blocks sites that troubled chilren may need to view, which they can't view at home, but you can't have the public access unfiltered because kids may use it to bring up porn (and I'm not talking about kids stumbling across porn, there will be one smart kid who can bring up the sickest child rape pics on the net and then show his friends, who show their friends), and you can't monitor their internet use because then the troubled kids won't seek the information they need (about rape support, or teen homosexuality) if they are being monitored, which is why they don't do it at home. It's all fucked.
But that just adds a different problem: that use of the internet must be monitored to see if you are viewing inappropriate stuff. To use example given here, do you think a kid will look up information because they think they are homosexual or are looking for rape support, etc, if they knew that the librarian/teacher/etc had to monitor their internet use to enusre they aren't looking at porn.
And oddly enough, it doesn't quite work that way either. Politicians who are self serving do not necessarily to what is good for the public. They may just drag their opponent through the muck, or snowball the public on issues by taking different public and private stances. They do favors for large contributors, because advertising dollars will beat out a decent record.
Slashdot Mirror
But since I didn't take the asm first route I'll never know. I learned asm after learning BASIC and C and while learning C++.
The analogy still holds. You can do all of the order analysis of a program you want, but ultimately it's the real execution of the program that proves you right or wrong. Physics predicts correctly things that cannot be observed with the technology at the time. Computer Science is no different.
Just because they don't come to discuss the material doesn't mean they aren't discussing it. I never once went to a TA, because I had my own group of friends to discuss the class concepts with.
In fact, everything I did in Pascal generalized to Java as well. We were doing ADTs and proving the order of algorithms. This is the stuff I think first year students should be taught because all of that sticks with you for the rest of your schooling. It's hard to take a course on algoithms when you don't understand the reasons why a Binary tree can be slower than a AVL.
You mean like physics.
And FWIW, my CS degree was taught by the Faculty of Methematics at the University of Waterloo. There aren't many Universities that you can get a BMath at, though.
This makes no sense to me. Whitespace should be significant, but this code shouldn't break because you took the if out. Consider the following:
if (a>1)
{
System.out.println("x");
}
then
// if (a>1)
{
System.out.println("x");
}
Neither f the above break. Just because I am declaring a new block for no reason, doesn't imply to me that the compiler should break. In fact, I use this feature of C style languages all the time to block off the scope of local variables, thus making the code easier to read, like thus:
// switch a and b
{
int tmp=a;
b=a;
a=tmp;
}
I don't want the tmp varable scoped past this switch, so I limit it's scope. I also use the comment at the top of the block to make the whole thing look prettier.
I have to differ with you brining Java into this comment. While there is no external standard body for Java, Java is not "defined by it's implementation". The Java Language spec has been found to differ from the behavious of javac many times, and it was javac, not the JLS that changed. Jikes uses the JLS, not javac as it's reference. Javac is only a reference implementation, in that it mostly conforms to the JLS.
You know, sometime things that don't make sense to you actually do make sense. While it would be nice for us if management let us pick whatever tools and languages we want, the fact of the matter it that they are going to have to have people maintain this system long after we leave. It would be a very bad thing for them if a developer created a successful product in Python, and then left. Trying to find a replacement would be very hard, and even when they do, how would they even be able to test his actual skill in Python (with the resident Python expert gone). After hiring someone, and he says the project need a rewrite, how could they tell if he's snoballing or not? In this case, I agree with the powers that be. Sometime the best tool for the job doesn't include technological factors.
No, it would be called IPSEC.
To be fair, recording inventory is not a transaction.
It would be easy to make a hackmaster hack that would do this
22/7 is a common approximation of Pi.
It's not that it's hard. It was just easier. Usenet binaries groups actually contained what was advertised in the group name. Sure you can get porn fron alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.redheads, but you can't get redheads. It's all advertising. Plus, many ISPs don't carry those groups anymore, mostly because the spam does take up so much room.
Or, if Sony lost this, then they wouldn't be able to make emulators for other platforms in their Playstation 3s.
Warning of goat sex link!
The ring (at least in Canada) is iron. It started because of an iron bridge that collapsed, killing tens of people, due to shoddy engineering. The original iron rings were made from the iron of that original bridge. All that iron is gone now, though.
The questions I ask aren't hard, they are just supposed to show me that the person really has worked with the technology enough. But most people really do poorly, even though they have experience. They can't list a couple classes from the javax.servlet.http package. They don't know what a RequestDispatcher does. They don't know how to pass informatin from a Servlet to a JSP that you dispatch to, they don't know what web.xml is, they don't know anything about tag libs. They have no understanding of EJBs beyond the fact that there are two main types (Session and Entity).
They are often okay with SQL, which is good, although I did have a certified Oracle DBA who was unable to do a two table join.
It's okay to know know every one of these things. You won't get a perfect grade, but you can miss a couple of these and still get a B- in overall J2EE (minimum to be hired in the solutions center, but for recruiting it depends on what the hiring company wants). But every candidate I've had will maybe get one out of the above correct, and those are just the easy questions. I can't even move on to the harder ones, because it's obvious they don't have the basis.
Now that you put it that way, it really sounds like price dumping. If all the big players are doing it, it doesn't mean that there isn't a barrier of entry for a smaller vendor.
This may work for what I would use it for or it may not. I do a lot of copy and pasting and the pasting is usually pasted multiple times. I know that you don't alway pop, that isn't my problem. Thinking about what I was talking about, I could copy two things, and then paste them over and over again. With the stackboard, I can't. Also, I would have to copy in reverse order that I wanted to paste in, because the cursor will inevitably be at the end of my paste. I think doing that would be a little cumbersome (not unusable, but I would prefer to copy in the order I'm reading my code, not in the reverse order). I still feel that appending would suit me better, but not having used a stackboard system, I don't know how much I would run up against it's limitations. I do know that XCV good enough, but can be better.
The cost of this would be pretty prohibative, though, and it may aide in crime, because with good planning, a criminal can sit at home and plan a robbery using the very cameras that are supposed to protect.
This isn't talking about filtering in the home. It's talking about mandatory filtering in the schools. Do you think that schools should pay for HBO and Cinemax and leave access to those channels unrestricted? Do you think schools should pay for internet connections and leave access to that unrestricted? What about libraries? This isn't an easy topic. There are million edges to this dicotomy (a megacotomy?). Filtering software blocks sites that troubled chilren may need to view, which they can't view at home, but you can't have the public access unfiltered because kids may use it to bring up porn (and I'm not talking about kids stumbling across porn, there will be one smart kid who can bring up the sickest child rape pics on the net and then show his friends, who show their friends), and you can't monitor their internet use because then the troubled kids won't seek the information they need (about rape support, or teen homosexuality) if they are being monitored, which is why they don't do it at home. It's all fucked.
4. they don't think a 30 year old should see said latex person
I guess they have to earn the rights, by showing they are responsible.
But that just adds a different problem: that use of the internet must be monitored to see if you are viewing inappropriate stuff. To use example given here, do you think a kid will look up information because they think they are homosexual or are looking for rape support, etc, if they knew that the librarian/teacher/etc had to monitor their internet use to enusre they aren't looking at porn.
And oddly enough, it doesn't quite work that way either. Politicians who are self serving do not necessarily to what is good for the public. They may just drag their opponent through the muck, or snowball the public on issues by taking different public and private stances. They do favors for large contributors, because advertising dollars will beat out a decent record.