Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #23857 > unrolled thread

Re: lectures about "programming methodology"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-05-06 10:50 -0500
    Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-05-06 18:59 +0200
      Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-05-06 12:28 -0500
    Re: lectures about "programming methodology" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-05-06 21:43 -0400

#23857 — Re: lectures about "programming methodology"

On 5/6/2013 7:23 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> But I have watched only the first lectures so far.
>
>    I just watched another lecture and noticed the following:

Keep in mind that this course is probably for people who have never 
heard of a programming language before. Excessive pedantry may serve to 
confuse rather than elucidate, as I have found when TA'ing 
introductory-level computer science courses.

>    He said that a variable had a name. This is not always true
>    in Java (he referred to Java, since he is exclusively using
>    Java). In Java there also are anonymous variables, like the
>    variables of an array.

In general programming language concepts, a "variable" is generally a 
user-declared construct with a name, so "anonymous variables" are 
usually a contradiction in terminology. I did go back to the JLS and 
look it up; what it calls "variables" are what C would call "lvalues" or 
are more generally called memory locations.

>    I am actually watching this to learn English pronunciation
>    of programming terms (otherwise, I just would read a text),
>    and what I /did/ like was that for the word »char« he gave
>    the pronunciations of /kA&/ and /kæ&/ (where A is the open
>    back unrounded vowel and & is the schwar), which I also use
>    (/kA&/). Bjarne Stroustrup says it was /tSA&/ (where tS is
>    the voiceless palato-alveolar affricate), well, maybe that
>    is valid for C++ programmers ...

There is no universal agreed-upon pronunciation of "char." The common 
pronunciations are "kair" (rhymes with air, like the beginning of 
character) and "char" (like the beginning of charcoal).


-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#23859

You have a strange extra character in your From header:

From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIENyYW5tZXIg8J+Qpw==?=
 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid>

It shows up as an unknown character below, but as a square containing
hex code 01F427 in the header shown with the post.

2013-05-06 17:50, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 skrev:

-- 
Lars Enderin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23860

On 5/6/2013 11:59 AM, Lars Enderin wrote:
> You have a strange extra character in your From header:
>
> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIENyYW5tZXIg8J+Qpw==?=
>   <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid>
>
> It shows up as an unknown character below, but as a square containing
> hex code 01F427 in the header shown with the post.

It is intended to be the Unicode character representing a penguin. I've 
taken to including such things to test the resilience of software to 
non-ASCII and, in particular, non-BMP characters.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23873

On 5/6/2013 11:50 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 5/6/2013 7:23 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>> But I have watched only the first lectures so far.
>>
>>    I just watched another lecture and noticed the following:
>
> Keep in mind that this course is probably for people who have never
> heard of a programming language before. Excessive pedantry may serve to
> confuse rather than elucidate, as I have found when TA'ing
> introductory-level computer science courses.

Successful teaching of beginner programmers has very little to do
with correct and complete definitions of things.

Being able to make the stuff interesting and to simplify things
to where the audience can understand it is critical.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web