www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Teaching D at a Russian University

reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
A while back, Grigorii Smorkalov shared on these forums [a blog 
post he had written] in Russian describing his experience 
teaching D at a Humanities university in Russia. He has since 
updated the post to cover the intervening years, and Georgy 
Markov translated it into English for the D blog.

Thanks to Georgy for doing the translation and for Grigorii 
allowing us to republish it.

The Blog:
https://dlang.org/blog/2022/02/19/how-i-taught-the-d-programming-language-at-a-russian-university/

Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/swc0ni/how_i_taught_the_d_programming_language_at_a/
Feb 19
parent reply matheus <matheus gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 15:10:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 ...
Interesting article. And I think it would be nice if that teacher had taken a pool asking what they think after finishing with D vs C/C++ which they learned before. Oh and I'm curious about what compiler they're using, DMD maybe? I think this should be pointed out since he talked about the performance issues on machines with less than 2GB of RAM. By the way English isn't my first language but I think there is a small typo: "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not required." I think it's missing the word "example": "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are not required." Finally I think the blog should get rid of this style: .site-content article { word-wrap: break-word; -moz-hyphens: auto; hyphens: auto; } For me it's very distracting thing. Matheus.
Feb 19
parent reply Elronnd <elronnd elronnd.net> writes:
On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 17:33:07 UTC, matheus wrote:
 By the way English isn't my first language but I think there is 
 a small typo:

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not 
 required."

 I think it's missing the word "example":

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are not 
 required."
I think it is fine as is.
Feb 19
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/19/2022 12:26 PM, Elronnd wrote:
 I think it is fine as is.
So do I. I enjoy the unusual phrasings some ESL people use. For example, a long time ago in a circle of friends of mine one ESL person would say things like: "time for go" instead of "time to go" "make some shoppings" instead of "go shopping" and the circle just adopted his way of saying things. I find myself still doing it :-)
Feb 19
parent reply Ogi <ogion.art gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:23:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 So do I. I enjoy the unusual phrasings some ESL people use.
Translator here. Actually, that was our collective effort towards weird wording. The original translation I sent to Mike for editing stated “*for once* header files are not required”—I meant *for instance* but confused is with *for once*. Mike, instead of correcting it into *for example* or *for instance*, simply dropped *once*. Then I missed it when reviewing his edits. I see that this construction can work in English, but what Grigorii and me meant was much simpler.
Feb 20
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 09:58:39 UTC, Ogi wrote:
 On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:23:03 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 So do I. I enjoy the unusual phrasings some ESL people use.
Translator here. Actually, that was our collective effort towards weird wording. The original translation I sent to Mike for editing stated “*for once* header files are not required”—I meant *for instance* but confused is with *for once*. Mike, instead of correcting it into *for example* or *for instance*, simply dropped *once*. Then I missed it when reviewing his edits.
Haha. I interpreted "for once" to mean "on this occasion", which seemed really out of context. "for" worked as a more general substitute for it. "for example" never crossed my mind. I'll change it.
Feb 20
parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 10:58:57 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 09:58:39 UTC, Ogi wrote:
 On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:23:03 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 So do I. I enjoy the unusual phrasings some ESL people use.
Translator here. Actually, that was our collective effort towards weird wording. The original translation I sent to Mike for editing stated “*for once* header files are not required”—I meant *for instance* but confused is with *for once*. Mike, instead of correcting it into *for example* or *for instance*, simply dropped *once*. Then I missed it when reviewing his edits.
Haha. I interpreted "for once" to mean "on this occasion", which seemed really out of context. "for" worked as a more general substitute for it. "for example" never crossed my mind. I'll change it.
Thought to be honest, given that the preceding sentence says "the difference between declaration and definition lose their meaning", it reads to me like "such nuances" refers to the nuances of header files, so to then say "for/because header files are not required" makes perfect sense. "for example, header files are not required" feels a little redundant from that perspective. But I've made the change anyway, for it fits from a different perspective :-)
Feb 20
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Paul Backus <snarwin gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 20:26:45 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
 On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 17:33:07 UTC, matheus wrote:
 By the way English isn't my first language but I think there 
 is a small typo:

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not 
 required."

 I think it's missing the word "example":

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are 
 not required."
I think it is fine as is.
Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a coordinating conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit formal or old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd usually use "since". [1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/
Feb 19
next sibling parent reply matheus <matheus gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:44:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
 Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a coordinating 
 conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit formal or 
 old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd usually use 
 "since".

 [1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/
Interesting, since English is not my first language, if in that sentence instead of "for" there was the word "since", I wouldn't have been bothered, but since it was the first time I saw the usage of "for" in that way, I found awkward. After that I even look into a translator which gave the same translation with "since" and "for" in that sentence. Well living and learning. :) Matheus.
Feb 19
next sibling parent Paolo Invernizzi <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 04:38:46 UTC, matheus wrote:
 On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:44:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
 Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a 
 coordinating conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit 
 formal or old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd 
 usually use "since".

 [1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/
Interesting, since English is not my first language, if in that sentence instead of "for" there was the word "since", I wouldn't have been bothered, but since it was the first time I saw the usage of "for" in that way, I found awkward. After that I even look into a translator which gave the same translation with "since" and "for" in that sentence. Well living and learning. :) Matheus.
And this is 'Chaos' for us, poor ESL people ... http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html :-P
Feb 20
prev sibling parent reply Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 04:38:46 UTC, matheus wrote:

 Interesting, since English is not my first language, if in that 
 sentence instead of "for" there was the word "since", I 
 wouldn't have been bothered, but since it was the first time I 
 saw the usage of "for" in that way, I found awkward.
"Forgive me father, for I have sinned."
Feb 20
parent bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 14:37:46 UTC, Stanislav Blinov 
wrote:
 On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 04:38:46 UTC, matheus wrote:

 Interesting, since English is not my first language, if in 
 that sentence instead of "for" there was the word "since", I 
 wouldn't have been bothered, but since it was the first time I 
 saw the usage of "for" in that way, I found awkward.
"Forgive me father, for I have sinned."
That's possibly the best example one could have given.
Feb 25
prev sibling next sibling parent Abdulhaq <alynch4047 gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:44:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
 On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 20:26:45 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
 On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 17:33:07 UTC, matheus wrote:
 By the way English isn't my first language but I think there 
 is a small typo:

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not 
 required."

 I think it's missing the word "example":

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are 
 not required."
I think it is fine as is.
Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a coordinating conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit formal or old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd usually use "since". [1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/
for the benefit of ESL people, yes the two phrases are both grammatically correct, but they do have different meanings. 'For' here has a sense of 'because', implying the non-requirement of header files is the main reason. When we say 'for example', it's indicating one of a number of reasons.
Feb 20
prev sibling parent reply Patrick Schluter <Patrick.Schluter bbox.fr> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:44:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
 On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 20:26:45 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
 On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 17:33:07 UTC, matheus wrote:
 By the way English isn't my first language but I think there 
 is a small typo:

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not 
 required."

 I think it's missing the word "example":

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are 
 not required."
I think it is fine as is.
Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a coordinating conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit formal or old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd usually use "since". [1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/
I read that the "for" as an equivalent of "because" was indeed almost extinct but was more or less resurrected by Tolkien as he used it throughout Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit.https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/566024/the-meaning-of-word-for-at-the-beginning-of-sentence
Feb 20
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 11:04:45 UTC, Patrick Schluter 
wrote:

 I read that the "for" as an equivalent of "because" was indeed 
 almost extinct but was more or less resurrected by Tolkien as 
 he used it throughout Lord of the Rings and the 
 Hobbit.https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/566024/the-meaning-of-word-for-at-the-beginning-of-sentence
Yes, the Tolkienesque way of using "for" at the beginning of a sentence is rarely used anymore. But it is still sometimes used in modern writing to join two independent clauses together in a single sentence, usually for flavor.
Feb 20
parent Patrick Schluter <Patrick.Schluter bbox.fr> writes:
On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 11:35:59 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 11:04:45 UTC, Patrick Schluter 
 wrote:

 I read that the "for" as an equivalent of "because" was indeed 
 almost extinct but was more or less resurrected by Tolkien as 
 he used it throughout Lord of the Rings and the 
 Hobbit.https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/566024/the-meaning-of-word-for-at-the-beginning-of-sentence
Yes, the Tolkienesque way of using "for" at the beginning of a sentence is rarely used anymore. But it is still sometimes used in modern writing to join two independent clauses together in a single sentence, usually for flavor.
The funny thing, as an English as third language learner (I grew up as French and German bilingual) Tolkienesque for never registered as something odd. It was only when a colleague, who happened to be a native english speaker, made a remark in one of my emails at work that I learnt about it.
Feb 20
prev sibling parent Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 20:26:45 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
 On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 17:33:07 UTC, matheus wrote:
 By the way English isn't my first language but I think there 
 is a small typo:

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not 
 required."

 I think it's missing the word "example":

 "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are 
 not required."
I think it is fine as is.
Same. And my personal opinion is, even in general people should not be afraid to use old-fashioned language if they feel like it. It keeps the language colourful. (Unless the old-fashioned language usage means using a deprecated programming language feature. Don't do that :D.)
Feb 20