www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - "So You Want To Be A Programmer?"

reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Short version classes Walter things are good (and otherwise) for programmers.

My thoughts on his thoughts:


 Compiler Construction


Yup


 Assembler Programming


Oh, Yes!


 Jet Engine Analysis - [...] If I could figure out what this has to do with 


programming, I'd tell you. So sue me.

There both a "guy thing"? And just flat cool.


 Chemistry - [...] Chemistry seemed to be more oriented towards [...] and 


trial and error. I don't think that applies much to programming.

I thing trial and error applies to programming. I whish it didn't, but it 
sure seems to.
Jul 01 2008
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Short version classes Walter things are good (and otherwise) for 
 programmers.


Da link:

http://dobbscodetalk.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=So-You-Want-To-Be-A-Programmer-.html&Itemid=29

Reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/info/6prqb/comments/
Jul 01 2008
parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Walter,


 Da link:
 


I'm shure I had that in there... :(  (my bad)
Jul 01 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
BCS wrote:


 trial and error applies to programming


That depends of your definition of programming :-)

-manfred
Jul 01 2008
parent reply "Davidson Corry" <davidsoncorry comcast.net> writes:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:59:30 -0700, Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com>  
wrote:


 BCS wrote:


 trial and error applies to programming


 That depends of your definition of programming :-)

 -manfred


Famously: "Build one to throw away. You will anyway." (Fred Brooks, /The  
Mythical Man-Month/)
Jul 01 2008
parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Davidson Corry wrote:


 Build one to throw away.


That's not a contradiction.
One is still free to define "coding the real thing" to be 
"programming".

-manfred
Jul 02 2008
parent "Davidson Corry" <davidsoncorry comcast.net> writes:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:57:17 -0700, Manfred_Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com>  
wrote:


 Build one to throw away.


 That's not a contradiction.
 One is still free to define "coding the real thing" to be
 "programming".


Oh, aye. For that matter, Brooks' own feelings on the matter have outgrown  
the bare "throw away" project.

But in any project of significant size, you don't code the final version  
on the first try. (*I* never do, I'll tell you that!) There is a lot of  
evolution and re-design based on experiment and discovery. Heck, that is  
the heart of, for example, scrum. No experiment is a failure if you learn  
 from it; naetheless, there is often an element of it that you throw away.

Put it this way: if only the lines of code that actually ship are "the  
real thing", then I get paid a lot for not-programming.
Jul 02 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
== Quote from BCS (ao pathlink.com)'s article

 Short version classes Walter things are good (and otherwise) for programmers.
 My thoughts on his thoughts:

 Compiler Construction


 Yup

 Assembler Programming


 Oh, Yes!


I liked the mention of Physics as well.  However, I'd have added Philosophy.
As the foundation for logic, language theory, etc, some philosophic training
is incredibly useful.


Sean
Jul 01 2008
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 I liked the mention of Physics as well.  However, I'd have added Philosophy.
 As the foundation for logic, language theory, etc, some philosophic training
 is incredibly useful.


Since I've never taken any courses in philosophy, I can't speak for that 
from personal experience.

I do know that after 4 years at Caltech, I was far better equipped to 
learn new things and solve problems I had no idea, beforehand, how to 
even begin.

For example, the senior classes were much tougher than the freshman 
ones, yet I needed to expend less effort to master them.

The curriculum was not designed to teach knowledge, but to teach you how 
to think.
Jul 01 2008
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 
 The curriculum was not designed to teach knowledge, but to teach you how 
 to think.


That kind of college degrees are often (if not allways), the best ones.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Jul 05 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 The curriculum was not designed to teach knowledge, but to teach you 
 how to think.


 
 That kind of college degrees are often (if not allways), the best ones.
 


I think it's the only kind worth having <g>.

Memorizing things is what computers are for.
Jul 05 2008
prev sibling parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Sean,


 == Quote from BCS (ao pathlink.com)'s article
 

 Short version classes Walter things are good (and otherwise) for
 programmers. My thoughts on his thoughts:
 

 Compiler Construction
 


 Yup
 

 Assembler Programming
 


 Oh, Yes!
 


 I liked the mention of Physics as well.  However, I'd have added
 Philosophy. As the foundation for logic, language theory, etc, some
 philosophic training is incredibly useful.
 
 Sean
 


One of the best classes I have taken was symbolic logic (Phil 202 IIRC). 
I'll never know why that is a Philosophy class and not a math class.
Jul 01 2008
parent reply JMNorris <nospam nospam.com> writes:
BCS <ao pathlink.com> wrote in news:55391cb32ebb78caa9ac8a83e146
 news.digitalmars.com:

 
 One of the best classes I have taken was symbolic logic (Phil 202 IIRC). 
 I'll never know why that is a Philosophy class and not a math class.


The reason is mostly historical.  Logic has been part of philosophy since 
the ancient Greeks, but wasn't sufficienlty well developed to be treated 
with mathematical rigor until Frege (second half of the 19th century).  
IIRC, it isn't until Hibert that you get logic addressed as a fully 
mathematical subject.  Nowadays, both math and philosophy departments teach 
logic, though with a somewhat different emphasis.  Math departments 
generally teach it primarily at a grad student level.  Philosophy 
departments teach it at both grad and undergrad levels.

-- 
JMNorris
Jul 01 2008
parent reply Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:
JMNorris wrote:

 BCS <ao pathlink.com> wrote in news:55391cb32ebb78caa9ac8a83e146
  news.digitalmars.com:
 

One of the best classes I have taken was symbolic logic (Phil 202 IIRC). 
I'll never know why that is a Philosophy class and not a math class.


 
 The reason is mostly historical.  Logic has been part of philosophy since 
 the ancient Greeks, but wasn't sufficienlty well developed to be treated 
 with mathematical rigor until Frege (second half of the 19th century).  
 IIRC, it isn't until Hibert that you get logic addressed as a fully 
 mathematical subject.  Nowadays, both math and philosophy departments teach 
 logic, though with a somewhat different emphasis.  Math departments 
 generally teach it primarily at a grad student level.  Philosophy 
 departments teach it at both grad and undergrad levels.


I took a class in symbolic logic at the university. Boolean expressions 
have never been the same after that. I sure wish I'd learnt the stuff 
much earlier.
Jul 02 2008
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Georg Wrede" <georg nospam.org> wrote in message 
news:486BA245.2030308 nospam.org...

 JMNorris wrote:

 BCS <ao pathlink.com> wrote in news:55391cb32ebb78caa9ac8a83e146
  news.digitalmars.com:


One of the best classes I have taken was symbolic logic (Phil 202 IIRC). 
I'll never know why that is a Philosophy class and not a math class.


 The reason is mostly historical.  Logic has been part of philosophy since 
 the ancient Greeks, but wasn't sufficienlty well developed to be treated 
 with mathematical rigor until Frege (second half of the 19th century). 
 IIRC, it isn't until Hibert that you get logic addressed as a fully 
 mathematical subject.  Nowadays, both math and philosophy departments 
 teach logic, though with a somewhat different emphasis.  Math departments 
 generally teach it primarily at a grad student level.  Philosophy 
 departments teach it at both grad and undergrad levels.


 I took a class in symbolic logic at the university. Boolean expressions 
 have never been the same after that. I sure wish I'd learnt the stuff much 
 earlier.


I found that my programming experience made classes in symbolic logic (and 
discrete math) to be agonisingly slow-pased. I ended up serverely irritating 
the rest of the class because I was being so pedantic about all of the 
instructor's examples, just so I could stay awake. Although I suppose I made 
up for that in other areas - I never could pass German 101 (well, 
technically I did, but I think the prof was bending the rules in my case). 
It was too close to my native language of English to make any sense ;)
Jul 10 2008