Coding - the new Latin
-
When I studied CS it was all Java. But anyone who first learns to program while studying CS was never serious about it anyway. The first thing I learned was z80 assembly. (or TI BASIC if that counts[no] - I learned z80 assembly because TI BASIC is slow)
Does Logo count? Not sure what language I learned on my TI-83+, but I learned one of them at least. If not, then does QuickBasic count? Now that I think about it, I had lots of first programming languages. :)
Somebody in an online forum wrote:
INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
-
Without wanting to get into a 'back in the day...' discussion, when I started out we were taught from the bottom up. CPU, ALU, buffers, memory access, tape I/O [none of the new-fangled disks for us]. A lot of early assignments were simple machine code tasks, but getting a right answer only garnered about 75% of the marks. The rest was for compact and efficient code. 25++ years on I still remember "The sooner you start coding, the later you'll finish."
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Very true but remember 25 years ago coding was a much more confined affair, no internet less languages and such plus no OO or things to confused people who might not be able to grasp the concepts of coding.
James Binary Warrior.
-
Aunty says[^]:
The campaign to boost the teaching of computer skills - particularly coding - in schools is gathering force.
I'd like to see maths and language skill being taught fully and then IT on top of that. I really don't want a generation of noobs thinking they're 1337. So, buns at the ready, it's over to you guys... [edit] De-doofused post. You'd think after one oops, I'd chick my spoiling.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
This is such BS. Coding is a psecific part of a particular engineering discipline. It shoes the utter ignorance of the goyt that they try to promote it. Why not promote welding? Stress analysis? Thermodynamics? Resonance theory? All these are specific parts of other engineering disciplines. Why not? Clearly this is BS, a govt playing at doing the right thing. Idiots.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
If somebody can't explain a task in clear simple terms, they don't understand it sufficiently well to enable you to code it.
Ye Gods, man! How do you get anything coded? :)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
We don't, we bill by the day. ;)
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
We don't, we bill by the day. ;)
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Aunty says[^]:
The campaign to boost the teaching of computer skills - particularly coding - in schools is gathering force.
I'd like to see maths and language skill being taught fully and then IT on top of that. I really don't want a generation of noobs thinking they're 1337. So, buns at the ready, it's over to you guys... [edit] De-doofused post. You'd think after one oops, I'd chick my spoiling.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
I've met some people like that...I'm at an engineering school it's required that everyone takes at least a basic programming course (mostly C++, there's also a Java class now and then), and I was working on an application for a grad student who thought because he had taken a couple of Java courses he knew everything about programming (more than the group of Comp Sci's I was in, all juniors or seniors). At one point he even told another member of the group: "You're programming wrong!"
-
C64 and C128 basic for me :)
Alberto Bar-Noy --------------- “The city’s central computer told you? R2D2, you know better than to trust a strange computer!” (C3PO)
Started with 8080 assembly on an Altair 8800 then moved to Z80 when I replaced the CPU with a Cromemco board. Did a fair bit of Z80 assembler on the C128 but never got ambitious enough to learn 6502 for the C64. It seemed so limiting.
I'm not a programmer but I play one at the office
-
Without wanting to get into a 'back in the day...' discussion, when I started out we were taught from the bottom up. CPU, ALU, buffers, memory access, tape I/O [none of the new-fangled disks for us]. A lot of early assignments were simple machine code tasks, but getting a right answer only garnered about 75% of the marks. The rest was for compact and efficient code. 25++ years on I still remember "The sooner you start coding, the later you'll finish."
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
I remember similar stuff, the first thing to understand was the units in the CPU, so how buffers were arranged etc, how memory and I/O was mapped etc - otherwise how you could create the most efficient assembler. We had to build our own 6502 based computers, basic but had to be done as part of the course.
-
I remember similar stuff, the first thing to understand was the units in the CPU, so how buffers were arranged etc, how memory and I/O was mapped etc - otherwise how you could create the most efficient assembler. We had to build our own 6502 based computers, basic but had to be done as part of the course.
Yes. I started out in a digital electronics course path where we built a 4-bit computer from discrete components (the only "Large-scale" IC we were allowed to use was a barrel shifter we used to make a simple adder). When I later switched to programming, I couldn't believe how LITTLE those people knew about the hardware they were using to execute their code. I think programming should not be taught until AFTER some basic understanding of how the hardware functions. Reminds me of people who have no clue how their car works and then get upset because the engine seizes with no oil in it (true story).
Owen
-
Started with 8080 assembly on an Altair 8800 then moved to Z80 when I replaced the CPU with a Cromemco board. Did a fair bit of Z80 assembler on the C128 but never got ambitious enough to learn 6502 for the C64. It seemed so limiting.
I'm not a programmer but I play one at the office
Lilith.C wrote:
Started with 8080 assembly
... I started with PDP-10 assembly, then went to 6502 followed by Z80. Then took a course - for FUN; didn't count toward degree - in VAX Assembler (Q-word fun!). Then I learned FORTRAN, then C, the Pascal, then (SHUDDER) COBOL. I don't think I did anything in BASIC until I had a job using HP computers running Rocky Mountain Basic. Fun memories. Thanks for the thread, etc...
-
Yes. I started out in a digital electronics course path where we built a 4-bit computer from discrete components (the only "Large-scale" IC we were allowed to use was a barrel shifter we used to make a simple adder). When I later switched to programming, I couldn't believe how LITTLE those people knew about the hardware they were using to execute their code. I think programming should not be taught until AFTER some basic understanding of how the hardware functions. Reminds me of people who have no clue how their car works and then get upset because the engine seizes with no oil in it (true story).
Owen
It's important to know both, but I don't think the order in which you learn them matters so much. If anything, learning about programming first is helpful because it sets in motion the construction of a completely new set of mental machinery, for solving problems in a systematic way which connects abstract and concrete concepts in a way the learner has probably never experienced before. How the hardware works is kind of arbitrary - you could have a computer implemented with bacteria or slime mold, or maybe Babbage's cogs and gears, but the language of problem solving, of algorithms, is the same. And after all, the hardware exists solely to facilitate the execution of programs. So showing a kid an IC board and telling them about the CPU, registers, how memory works, what interrupts are, how an adder or boolean gate is implemented... they're amazing things, but I honestly don't think they will have the same impact as (or before) the moment they "get" programming. Looking at the hardware and figuring out how it does something you do in software is a powerful experience. I say this from the perspective of someone who started programming before learning anything about hardware - from typing in the examples in the Commodore 64 user's manual, then examples from magazines, then graduating to STOS and then GFA Basic on the Atari ST, a couple of years before touching 68000 assembly language which roughly coincided with exposure to basic electronics and digital logic in school and books.
-
This is such BS. Coding is a psecific part of a particular engineering discipline. It shoes the utter ignorance of the goyt that they try to promote it. Why not promote welding? Stress analysis? Thermodynamics? Resonance theory? All these are specific parts of other engineering disciplines. Why not? Clearly this is BS, a govt playing at doing the right thing. Idiots.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
This is such BS.
Coding is a psecific part of a particular engineering discipline.
It shoes the utter ignorance of the goyt that they try to promote it.
Why not promote welding? Stress analysis? Thermodynamics? Resonance theory?
All these are specific parts of other engineering disciplines. Why not?Couldn't disagree more really. I think everybody should learn how to program. It's not a specific part of a particular engineering discipline - it's a tool that can and should rightfully be used in almost every engineering (and statistical/financial/analytical discipline). What are the chances that a programmer/accountant/mechanic/immunologist might need to apply resonance theory or stress analysis? Practically zero. What are the chances that someone who applies resonance theory in their daily work might also benefit from programming (even it's just designing a prototype simulation model, setting something up in Matlab or R, etc)? Practically certain. ;) Apart from its wide-ranging usefulness, it's just a superb mental exercise in its own right, and it of course leads to very good computer literacy. Those are just some of the reasons why I'll be teaching my kids how to program, even if it's just moving an animated cat round the screen :laugh:
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
So, buns at the ready, it's over to you guys...
It's simple. Ask a person to teach you what their thought process was, what information they used to make decisions, why they chose the particular implementation that they did, how they tested it, how it met the requirements. Most people can't explain the how and why of what they do. If they can, succinctly, clearly, and so that you truly understand what they did (even if you don't agree with it, the point is that you understand it) then you have someone with some good skills. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Most people can't explain the how and why of what they do. If they can, succinctly, clearly, and so that you truly understand what they did (even if you don't agree with it, the point is that you understand it) then you have someone with some good skills.
And of course they must also have skill with at least all of the following as well. - Communications. - Teaching, if the "you" in the above is not competent in all of the subjects being conveyed. - Organization since they must organize the presentation to convey the information in some reasonable time interval that is much less than it took to implement what they are discussing.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Most people can't explain the how and why of what they do. If they can, succinctly, clearly, and so that you truly understand what they did (even if you don't agree with it, the point is that you understand it) then you have someone with some good skills.
And of course they must also have skill with at least all of the following as well. - Communications. - Teaching, if the "you" in the above is not competent in all of the subjects being conveyed. - Organization since they must organize the presentation to convey the information in some reasonable time interval that is much less than it took to implement what they are discussing.
jschell wrote:
And of course they must also have skill with at least all of the following as well.
Exactly. And if communication and organization is lacking, then I would not trust their code. If teaching is lacking, I would find imagine working in a team environment would be more challenging. But that's just me and my biases. :) Marc
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
This is such BS.
Coding is a psecific part of a particular engineering discipline.
It shoes the utter ignorance of the goyt that they try to promote it.
Why not promote welding? Stress analysis? Thermodynamics? Resonance theory?
All these are specific parts of other engineering disciplines. Why not?Couldn't disagree more really. I think everybody should learn how to program. It's not a specific part of a particular engineering discipline - it's a tool that can and should rightfully be used in almost every engineering (and statistical/financial/analytical discipline). What are the chances that a programmer/accountant/mechanic/immunologist might need to apply resonance theory or stress analysis? Practically zero. What are the chances that someone who applies resonance theory in their daily work might also benefit from programming (even it's just designing a prototype simulation model, setting something up in Matlab or R, etc)? Practically certain. ;) Apart from its wide-ranging usefulness, it's just a superb mental exercise in its own right, and it of course leads to very good computer literacy. Those are just some of the reasons why I'll be teaching my kids how to program, even if it's just moving an animated cat round the screen :laugh:
destynova wrote:
Couldn't disagree more really. I think everybody should learn how to program
Presumably you are referring only to those in engineering when you say "everybody". Most people are not engineers and most people would not benefit from learning how to program even presuming that the minimal amount of course work that might be presented to most people would actually 'teach' them to program.
-
Yes. I started out in a digital electronics course path where we built a 4-bit computer from discrete components (the only "Large-scale" IC we were allowed to use was a barrel shifter we used to make a simple adder). When I later switched to programming, I couldn't believe how LITTLE those people knew about the hardware they were using to execute their code. I think programming should not be taught until AFTER some basic understanding of how the hardware functions. Reminds me of people who have no clue how their car works and then get upset because the engine seizes with no oil in it (true story).
Owen
Quote:
I couldn't believe how LITTLE those people knew about the hardware they were using to execute their code.
At a company I used to work at, they had employed a large number of Oracle consultants, you may have heard the great sucking sound of it as they were pulled in to aid the company's restructuring. I had been asked to take over a project that involved the use of a custom modem called a VISA POSport. They had been developing the code to process credit card transactions through it. The Oracle programmer was leaving for San Francisco I was told, to get married. I was also told that a backup POSport was to be installed. I asked where the computer was (we had followed the tech magazine mantra that mainframes were dead and were replacing them with minicomputers), the programmer and his manager gave me a blank look. They had done all of their work without ever looking at the hardware. Smelling a disaster being foisted on to me, I said that I regretted being a jerk, but I wanted the phone number and hotel he was staying at during his honeymoon in case I needed advice when the production system went live. Again I was given a blank look and then I was told he was going home to New Zealand to get married, he was just going to San Francisco to catch a flight there. This had me fuming, wondering why we couldn't find someone from THIS side of the planet to work on this critical code! Later my manager dropped 4" of source listings on my desk and said, find out why it is not working. I found the bug, not by going blind reading the listings, but by installing a protocol analyzer between the computer and the POSport modem. Sometimes it helps to have hardware to fix the software. At still another job, another programmer was trying to find out why his game was crashing after the code that "locks up" the executable had been installed. I overheard the manager threatening, "You either find the bug, or I'll find someone who will..." I thought, that was unhelpful, and since I was using an interrupt board to do documentation screenshots, I offered the use of the card to the programmer. At least I tried to bring something new to the table instead of intimidation. He then found the bug with the use of the card. Once again, sometimes hardware helps to debug software.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
destynova wrote:
Couldn't disagree more really. I think everybody should learn how to program
Presumably you are referring only to those in engineering when you say "everybody". Most people are not engineers and most people would not benefit from learning how to program even presuming that the minimal amount of course work that might be presented to most people would actually 'teach' them to program.
jschell wrote:
Presumably you are referring only to those in engineering when you say "everybody".
Most people are not engineers and most people would not benefit from learning how to program even presuming that the minimal amount of course work that might be presented to most people would actually 'teach' them to program.No, I mean "everybody" when I say "everybody". :-\ What makes you say that most people would not benefit from learning how to program? I thoroughly disagree with you on that point. Almost everybody uses computers, almost everybody needs to solve problems, and almost everybody needs to communicate clearly with each other. Learning programming helps with all of these things.
-
jschell wrote:
Presumably you are referring only to those in engineering when you say "everybody".
Most people are not engineers and most people would not benefit from learning how to program even presuming that the minimal amount of course work that might be presented to most people would actually 'teach' them to program.No, I mean "everybody" when I say "everybody". :-\ What makes you say that most people would not benefit from learning how to program? I thoroughly disagree with you on that point. Almost everybody uses computers, almost everybody needs to solve problems, and almost everybody needs to communicate clearly with each other. Learning programming helps with all of these things.
destynova wrote:
o, I mean "everybody" when I say "everybody".
Then you are wrong.
destynova wrote:
What makes you say that most people would not benefit from learning how to program? I thoroughly disagree with you on that point.
There a many things that would benefit people if they learned them. However: 1. There is no assurance that they will learn. 2. Education costs money which is finite resource. 3. Education takes time which is a finite resource 4. There is no assurance that it will in fact benefit them. Certainly none that justifies the cost and time.
destynova wrote:
Almost everybody uses computers,
Irrelevant. I use a car but that doesn't mean I know how to build an internal combustion engine.
destynova wrote:
almost everybody needs to solve problems, and almost everybody needs to communicate clearly with each other. Learning programming helps with all of these things.
There are any number of displines that cover that. And I seriously doubt that programming covers it better. For example learning how to deliver a speech in front of a crowd seems more likely to increase communication versus learning a programming language. Learning how to cook involves problem solving. Learning how to fix a flat involves problem solving. Learning how to balance a check book involves problem solving. Learning how to compare different types of loans involves problem solving. All of those are more likely to help the average person with specific skills and, presuming that "problem solving" can be taught is just a likely to lead to that skill.
-
destynova wrote:
o, I mean "everybody" when I say "everybody".
Then you are wrong.
destynova wrote:
What makes you say that most people would not benefit from learning how to program? I thoroughly disagree with you on that point.
There a many things that would benefit people if they learned them. However: 1. There is no assurance that they will learn. 2. Education costs money which is finite resource. 3. Education takes time which is a finite resource 4. There is no assurance that it will in fact benefit them. Certainly none that justifies the cost and time.
destynova wrote:
Almost everybody uses computers,
Irrelevant. I use a car but that doesn't mean I know how to build an internal combustion engine.
destynova wrote:
almost everybody needs to solve problems, and almost everybody needs to communicate clearly with each other. Learning programming helps with all of these things.
There are any number of displines that cover that. And I seriously doubt that programming covers it better. For example learning how to deliver a speech in front of a crowd seems more likely to increase communication versus learning a programming language. Learning how to cook involves problem solving. Learning how to fix a flat involves problem solving. Learning how to balance a check book involves problem solving. Learning how to compare different types of loans involves problem solving. All of those are more likely to help the average person with specific skills and, presuming that "problem solving" can be taught is just a likely to lead to that skill.
jschell wrote:
There a many things that would benefit people if they learned them. However:
1. There is no assurance that they will learn.
2. Education costs money which is finite resource.
3. Education takes time which is a finite resource
4. There is no assurance that it will in fact benefit them. Certainly none that justifies the cost and time.I don't believe that I made any promises that every learner will have an assurance that they will learn, nor that education was free in terms of time and money. Those constraints are entirely irrelevant and apply to all skills. Regarding your fourth point, well that's where we differ; I expect that anyone who has learned to program will have an extremely useful and widely-applicable tool at their disposal, forevermore, as well as a powerful way of looking at and breaking down problems.
jschell wrote:
There are any number of displines that cover that. And I seriously doubt that programming covers it better. For example learning how to deliver a speech in front of a crowd seems more likely to increase communication versus learning a programming language.
No. Learning to program is quite unique in forcing the programmer to systematically break down the problem and their intended solution into clear, unambiguous low level steps. You can't "gloss over" details when writing programs as you can when writing emails or, indeed, giving a speech. This is why (good) programmers tend to be more precise and clear in speech than, for example, politicians, who have ample experience in giving speeches in front of crowds :laugh:
jschell wrote:
Learning how to cook involves problem solving. Learning how to fix a flat involves problem solving. Learning how to balance a check book involves problem solving. Learning how to compare different types of loans involves problem solving. All of those are more likely to help the average person with specific skills and, presuming that "problem solving" can be taught is just a likely to lead to that skill.
Thank you, these examples precisely highlight how programming differs from those activities as far as problem solving goes. Each of those problems (perhaps with the exception of cooking) requires a very specific skill and solution, with little or no creation of new tactics and strategies. On the other hand, when you write a
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
This is such BS.
Coding is a psecific part of a particular engineering discipline.
It shoes the utter ignorance of the goyt that they try to promote it.
Why not promote welding? Stress analysis? Thermodynamics? Resonance theory?
All these are specific parts of other engineering disciplines. Why not?Couldn't disagree more really. I think everybody should learn how to program. It's not a specific part of a particular engineering discipline - it's a tool that can and should rightfully be used in almost every engineering (and statistical/financial/analytical discipline). What are the chances that a programmer/accountant/mechanic/immunologist might need to apply resonance theory or stress analysis? Practically zero. What are the chances that someone who applies resonance theory in their daily work might also benefit from programming (even it's just designing a prototype simulation model, setting something up in Matlab or R, etc)? Practically certain. ;) Apart from its wide-ranging usefulness, it's just a superb mental exercise in its own right, and it of course leads to very good computer literacy. Those are just some of the reasons why I'll be teaching my kids how to program, even if it's just moving an animated cat round the screen :laugh:
destynova wrote:
I think everybody should learn how to program
What a total waste of time and education resources! Only a small percent of those would go on to use it in their careers. Far better to tech kids something useful.
destynova wrote:
Practically zero
Exactly. What are the chances an accountant/mechanic/immunologist will need programming. Zero.
destynova wrote:
Practically certain
You know nothing about engineering. You would use properly written tools, not cobble together some hacked up app yourself.
destynova wrote:
Apart from its wide-ranging usefulness
Bollocks.
destynova wrote:
it's just a superb mental exercise in its own right
So is chess.
destynova wrote:
leads to very good computer literacy
Bollocks. How does learnign to code in VB help one use the internet? Set up a network card? Set up a file share? Create custome headers in Word?
============================== Nothing to say.