Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:05:31 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 22:31:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 29, 2003 at 20:16:59, Matthew White wrote: > >>On July 29, 2003 at 16:53:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On July 29, 2003 at 03:15:54, Hristo wrote: >>> >>>>On July 28, 2003 at 19:12:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 28, 2003 at 17:34:46, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Is there any reason to start new projects with C anymore? It seems like most (if >>>>>>not all) of the drawbacks of C++ have faded away with modern compilers. >>>>>> >>>>>>Note that I am talking about new projects, and maintaining old projects is >>>>>>obviously a good reason to still use C. >>>>> >>>>>If i would learn coding today i would prefer C++. >>>>> >>>>>However let's be clear, for good programmers there is not much diff between C >>>>>and C++. Every complex problem which you can solve in 10000 lines of C++ you can >>>>>solve in 10000 lines C too. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Vincent, >>>>with all due respect I must disagree. In 10K lines of C++ code one can solve a >>>>much more general or larger set of problem(s) or cram in more features. :) >>>>(think templates, exceptions, and often inheritance ... all of which can shorten >>>>your code) >>> >>>I do not know about you, but i program both in C and C++. >>> >>>Do you? >>> >>>Not a single program where you can use all the nice toys you can also make a few >>>functions for in C. >>> >>>In general the average programmed C++ program you program more compact in C. >>> >>>That's not what i'm talking about. >>> >>>If you do not know how to program in C, then just say it loud instead of writing >>>it down like this. >>> >>>the advantages of what you mention here (assuming 1 man products) you can show >>>great in 50 line examples or even 200 line examples. >>> >>>But as soon as you write a 10000 line product then it doesn't matter what you do >>>in C++. I can do the same in C too. No problem! >>> >>>>In your post, latter, you indicate that C++ offers some advantages over C, >>>>especially for large projects. In my experience this is %100 true, so we are in >>> >>>I see no other advantages to C++ than for big projects in fact. >>> >>>The advantage is *really* huge there for companies. >>> >>>Given the importance of those companies for the world, the choice to teach >>>students C++ instead of C is a logical choice. >>> >>>teaching them Java, delphi i find a bad idea. >>> >>The best reason that I see to teach students using Java is that Java gives you >>useful information when an error occurs (remember the first time you saw a >>segmentation fault how lost you felt?). Java has strong typing and it FORCES >>object orientedness. C and C++ are too frustrating for new programmers... >> >>Matt > >I agree fully with Bob here. His Pascal argument is very valid. > >Let me give you a bunch of reasons why you should not teach in a language like >that JAVA or delphi or pascal: > > 1) the students will later use the language they are learned. So > if you directly learn them C++ they will use that. now they are doomed > to use java or pascal because that's what they are familiar with. I can hardly believe this, but for once I agree with Vincent. 25 years ago we taught students to program in FORTRAN as their main language. I then taught a programming languages survey course and covered Algol (easy enough after FORTRAN) but then I hit APL, SNOBOL, etc. And while students wrote APL programs, they wrote "FORTRAN APL" programs. IE APL works on vectors and matrices just like it does scalars. You _can_ do loops but you don't need to most of the time. But once you have learned FORTRAN, loops make the world go 'round. It is _hard_ to be good at multiple languages that are intrinsically different at the basic semantic/syntactic level. From teaching for 30+ years, I believe students do better when they learn the language they will use professionally, first. > 2) your students will earn thanks to that you learned them this toy language > a lot less. C++ programmers earn better than Java programmers in general. > In fact even some 'older' languages like fortran earn very well. > Majority of > programmers in netherlands at the KPN (which is about a 1000) is fortran > programmers just to give an example. But also at supercomputers fortran > is very important. > 3) If you learn them C++ you achieve 3 objectives at the same time > 3a - they learn a language they can later use > 3b - you can show them the great things of object orientation > in 50 line programs > 3c - they are not fearing to program in C++ as they are familiar with it > 4) In big companies decisions get taken by management. Not by programmers. > Managers in general are doing what is good for their company. > If statistics show that 80% of all programmers with very small shoe > sizes will make buggy code, then in theory the law doesn't allow you > to discriminate. However managers do not work like the law there. They > fear hiring someone who writes buggy code, so they never hire someone > with a small shoe size if that statistic would be the case. > Same is true for Pascal. Pascal is for newbies, exactly as you say so. > Therefore managers will not hire people who are good in pascal, because > a manager always finds out the truth. With his questions to the programmer > the programmer in the end will confess he's better in pascal than in > C++, so the manager concludes he's a pascal coder. So the programmer > deduces from that he gotta be a crappy coder. So he isn't hired. > Managers work very instinctive and they should. They are there to prevent > disasters for their company, not to play the advocate of the devil which > will say that a coder isn't a bad coder unless you have clear proof > of that. Trivially it's easier to not hire someone than to fire someone. > 5) This really is important. In university and colleges they still do not >understand a thing very well and that is that 99% of the time you are busy >fixing bugs and 1% of the time you are busy creating something new. I will not >say throwing someone in the deep is a good thing. I have no opinion there. >But for sure it is better to learn to debug. Example at my own university out of >all the years that i was there i saw only 1 course which had 1 sheet which said >that debugging was important. > >All the other theories about debugging i have figured out myself. What is a >boundschecker. How the debugger works and how to effectively write testbeds. > >Your simple programming language when preventing severe bugs will definitely >create a bad coder. Someone who can't debug. That's a horror. > >If someone has followed your course i bet he can't debug. yet 99% of his time he >will lose debugging in his programming career. > >Programmers just starting their program i have always this discussion with: > >"Did you let it print to a log file all the lines is searched with alfa and beta >scores?" > >.. > >"Why not?" > >.. > >"SURE you must do that" > >.. > >"yes i am VERY sure you must do that. How can you fix a bug in your chess >program if you do not know where it is and all you know is that it plays the >wrong move?" > >How many more programmers who just started their chess engine i need to explain >it to? They should learn this already at *school* IMHO. > >If you only teach someone to drive a car, why give him a flying license?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.