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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #62771 > unrolled thread

pedagogy

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  pedagogy luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-28 22:42 -0700
    Re: pedagogy Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-29 00:57 -0500
    Re: pedagogy Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 11:10 +0100
      Re: pedagogy raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:42 +0000
        Re: pedagogy David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 10:02 -0700
          Re: pedagogy raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 18:23 +0000
    Re: pedagogy Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-05-29 13:34 +0200
    Re: pedagogy John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 08:17 -0700
      Re: pedagogy rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2015-05-29 08:33 -0700
        Re: pedagogy Etienne Prud'homme <e.e.f.prudhomme@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 12:25 -0400
          Re: pedagogy John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 14:28 -0700
            Re: pedagogy Etienne Prud'homme <e.e.f.prudhomme@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 00:58 -0400
      Re: pedagogy gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-29 15:46 +0000
    Re: pedagogy Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-29 22:16 -0500
    Re: pedagogy luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 00:16 -0700
      Re: pedagogy Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-05-30 11:31 +0000
        Re: pedagogy David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-30 07:10 -0700
          Re: pedagogy Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-30 15:38 +0100
            Re: pedagogy "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-05-31 09:43 -0500
              Re: pedagogy Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-31 16:03 +0100
                Re: pedagogy "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-05-31 10:34 -0500
                  Re: pedagogy Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-31 16:56 +0100
                  Re: pedagogy luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 10:28 -0700
                Re: pedagogy Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-31 17:04 +0100
                  Re: pedagogy Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-31 12:10 -0500
                    Re: pedagogy raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:21 +0000
            Re: pedagogy David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-31 09:01 -0700
              Re: pedagogy luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 21:51 -0700
                Re: pedagogy David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-03 09:14 -0700
                Re: pedagogy "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-04 00:48 -0700
    Re: pedagogy luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 22:12 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#62869

"Ben Bacarisse" wrote:

> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> "Bartc" wrote:
> <snip>
>>> (No, I don't have alternative suggestions, except that a language that 
>>> can
>>> used to code almost directly from an algorithm is worth looking at. 
>>> Maybe
>>> someone should just implement pseudo-code.)
>>
>> The first question that must be answered is: "Is the student willing to
>> learn a 'throw-away' language?  That is, one that one learns simply get
>> started, and then never uses again?
>
> That's a good question.
>
>> If so, that language is Pascal. I sort
>> of learned Lisp many, many years ago.  Nothing.  When I got my Atari ST, 
>> the
>> big thing was Logo. I spent hours on it.  Nothing. As far as I can tell
>> Pascal is a pretty good cut at a working form of pseudocode.  One huge
>> advantage over C is that types and variables and initial values are
>> different things and you damn well know it while it is going on. Pascal 
>> also
>> makes very clear the difference between a small integer and a character.
>> Pascal's wordiness may also make you appreciate C more when you learn the
>> two languages in that order.
>
> But Pascal is an odd suggestion, at least for those reasons!  Pascal is
> horrid to work in because it is so restrictive and, in my experience,
> students hate it.  The big plus point (and it should not be ignored) is
> the vast number of good books available that use or are about Pascal.
> And because it a language from another century, many can be picked up
> for pennies.  In fact, I'm about throw about a dozen of them away.

I guess part of the deal was, the student *knows* that he is learning a 
throw away language. I taught Microsoft Basic, Borland Pascal and Fortran 
concurrently in college in the eighties.  I never detected the dislike you 
mentioned. What could a new student possibly have as a basis for comparison? 
I mean, the flaws of English spelling are obvious, even to a child.  But 
Pascal?

I have spent a lot of time looking for the most perfect language but the 
interest has died down now.  The last language I learned is C++ and I find 
it disgusting. Is this a programming language or a huge baroque puzzle? 
ISTM that these revisions are turning it into a parody of a language. 

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

#62870

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:

> "Ben Bacarisse" wrote:
>
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> "Bartc" wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> (No, I don't have alternative suggestions, except that a language that 
>>>> can
>>>> used to code almost directly from an algorithm is worth looking at. 
>>>> Maybe
>>>> someone should just implement pseudo-code.)
>>>
>>> The first question that must be answered is: "Is the student willing to
>>> learn a 'throw-away' language?  That is, one that one learns simply get
>>> started, and then never uses again?
>>
>> That's a good question.
>>
>>> If so, that language is Pascal. I sort
>>> of learned Lisp many, many years ago.  Nothing.  When I got my Atari ST, 
>>> the
>>> big thing was Logo. I spent hours on it.  Nothing. As far as I can tell
>>> Pascal is a pretty good cut at a working form of pseudocode.  One huge
>>> advantage over C is that types and variables and initial values are
>>> different things and you damn well know it while it is going on. Pascal 
>>> also
>>> makes very clear the difference between a small integer and a character.
>>> Pascal's wordiness may also make you appreciate C more when you learn the
>>> two languages in that order.
>>
>> But Pascal is an odd suggestion, at least for those reasons!  Pascal is
>> horrid to work in because it is so restrictive and, in my experience,
>> students hate it.  The big plus point (and it should not be ignored) is
>> the vast number of good books available that use or are about Pascal.
>> And because it a language from another century, many can be picked up
>> for pennies.  In fact, I'm about throw about a dozen of them away.
>
> I guess part of the deal was, the student *knows* that he is learning a 
> throw away language. I taught Microsoft Basic, Borland Pascal and Fortran 
> concurrently in college in the eighties.  I never detected the dislike you 
> mentioned. What could a new student possibly have as a basis for comparison? 
> I mean, the flaws of English spelling are obvious, even to a child.  But 
> Pascal?

Its the rigid order of things.  They have to program with a cheat-sheet
printed out next to them the whole time.  It's no accident that almost
every language since has allowed greater flexibility with where things
can be declared.  And don't forget that . at the end!

A flexible syntax lowers the barrier to getting the thumbs-up from the
implementation, and that seems to help initial acceptance.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#62955

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 10:35:08 AM UTC-5, Osmium wrote:
> "Ben Bacarisse" wrote:
> 
> > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> "Bartc" wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> (No, I don't have alternative suggestions, except that a language that 
> >>> can
> >>> used to code almost directly from an algorithm is worth looking at. 
> >>> Maybe
> >>> someone should just implement pseudo-code.)
> >>
> >> The first question that must be answered is: "Is the student willing to
> >> learn a 'throw-away' language?  That is, one that one learns simply get
> >> started, and then never uses again?
> >
> > That's a good question.
> >
> >> If so, that language is Pascal. I sort
> >> of learned Lisp many, many years ago.  Nothing.  When I got my Atari ST, 
> >> the
> >> big thing was Logo. I spent hours on it.  Nothing. As far as I can tell
> >> Pascal is a pretty good cut at a working form of pseudocode.  One huge
> >> advantage over C is that types and variables and initial values are
> >> different things and you damn well know it while it is going on. Pascal 
> >> also
> >> makes very clear the difference between a small integer and a character.
> >> Pascal's wordiness may also make you appreciate C more when you learn the
> >> two languages in that order.
> >
> > But Pascal is an odd suggestion, at least for those reasons!  Pascal is
> > horrid to work in because it is so restrictive and, in my experience,
> > students hate it.  The big plus point (and it should not be ignored) is
> > the vast number of good books available that use or are about Pascal.
> > And because it a language from another century, many can be picked up
> > for pennies.  In fact, I'm about throw about a dozen of them away.
> 
> I guess part of the deal was, the student *knows* that he is learning a 
> throw away language. I taught Microsoft Basic, Borland Pascal and Fortran 
> concurrently in college in the eighties.  I never detected the dislike you 
> mentioned. What could a new student possibly have as a basis for comparison? 
> I mean, the flaws of English spelling are obvious, even to a child.  But 
> Pascal?

This whole branch is a useful perspective, too. I hadn't consciously
considered accounting for the second-system effect, but that may have
influenced my choice as much as my love of C and appreciation of its
virtues. 

My friend did not actually mention C, but several "C-like" languages
(for varying interpretations of "C-like"). He mentioned Python, Java,
JavaScript, and Visual Basic as the candidates that his research 
suggested would be good choices. 

Even so, anything learned while learning C will aid in the mastery
of any of these other languages, I do believe. And I'm not stopping
him from learning any of these others. But I'm going to give him 
C books.

Another advantage, if he sticks with C, is that it opens up a lot
of my personal library of books, accumulated these past 20 years.


> I have spent a lot of time looking for the most perfect language but the 
> interest has died down now.  The last language I learned is C++ and I find 
> it disgusting. Is this a programming language or a huge baroque puzzle? 
> ISTM that these revisions are turning it into a parody of a language.

I have been on the same quest. I was part of the Logo-kids in the 80s,
but there was too little structure in the presentation, and having now
read Papert, I really didn't learn a damned thing as a kid. In later
elementary school, my computer expertise was limited to the Apple ][e
applications Word Munchies, Carmen San Diego, and Oregon Trail.

In highschool we learned some BASIC and then some Pascal. With Pascal,
I got really excited because the Turbo Pascal IDE had online help,
including a library reference. So I was able to access the graphics
routines! :) And unlike basic, it compiled to an executable file,
a "real program". This was valuable to me, because if I were to make
something worth sharing, I wanted to be able to copy the program
to a disk and anybody with an IBM-compatible PC could run it. 
So, I pirated TP from school to my 286 at home, with my one floppy
disk, over several days (maybe it was a whole week) and proceeded
to begin my first project: porting a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book
to a text-adventure game. Unfortunately, I hadn't actually learned
any structured programming and after a few hundred lines of println
and spaghetti, I gave up. I devoted my attention to music and poetry
for the remainder of highschool and beginning of college. My computer
expertise was then limited to WordStar and WordPerfect.

In college, we all got unix accounts for email. And we even had to 
login to unix in a little pop-up terminal (which didn't have the
erase key properly set) for dial-up internet. From friends in the
dorm, I learned that you could browse the web with lynx over telnet
and it was blazing fast compared to Netscape 2.0 on the win 3.11 486s
in the computer labs. Another friend showed me how he wrote his
papers in html with a text editor (he was also doing some kind of
UDP file-sharing thing) a some basic shell-scripting. And it was
a revelation: this is what DOS was (badly) trying to do all those
years ago! So I signed up for CS101 and we learned C.

Then I had an aborted second-system effect with C++ (could not get
STL to work in an ACM programming competition). And then I had 
partial second-system effects with Perl and then Postscript.

So from my own experience, I strongly associate C with the firm
grounding that -- for want of a better metaphor -- turns spaghetti
into paste. With paste you can build parts, systems. Noodles 
are too wiggly.

For my own quest, I realized that I'd have to invent the perfect
language that I want. So I went back to Aho/Ullman/et al. and
Minsky /Finite and Infinite Machines/, and then tried to build
up from the lowest level with some abortive results here:
http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/4618/what-piece-am-i-missing-to-turn-this-idea-into-a-programming-language

More recently, I have found APL and I've read Lukasiewicz (the 
Pole behind Polish Notation) and Knuth's selected papers on
Programming Languages, and ... well, stilling working at it.

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

#62872

On 31/05/2015 16:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:

>> If so, that language is Pascal. I sort
>> of learned Lisp many, many years ago.  Nothing.  When I got my Atari ST, the
>> big thing was Logo. I spent hours on it.  Nothing. As far as I can tell
>> Pascal is a pretty good cut at a working form of pseudocode.  One huge
>> advantage over C is that types and variables and initial values are
>> different things and you damn well know it while it is going on. Pascal also
>> makes very clear the difference between a small integer and a character.
>> Pascal's wordiness may also make you appreciate C more when you learn the
>> two languages in that order.
>
> But Pascal is an odd suggestion, at least for those reasons!  Pascal is
> horrid to work in because it is so restrictive

The main restrictions (IIRC) were problems with the type system in not 
being able to deal with generic arrays and strings, instead of fixed 
length ones. Also the entire application had to be in one source file 
(the version I used anyway).

OK for teaching (the type system was otherwise cool, IMO), but a few 
tweaks would have been it more practical for real applications.

> and, in my experience,
> students hate it.

What did they want to learn instead? It could be that they'd heard of C 
or C++, which may have acquired a certain reputation, but some might 
have changed their minds when they actually used them!

> The big plus point (and it should not be ignored) is
> the vast number of good books available that use or are about Pascal.
> And because it a language from another century, many can be picked up
> for pennies.

Pascal is about the same age as C, and probably most C compilers 
implement the standard from the last century. Pascal has just become 
unpopular.

-- 
Bartc

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

#62878

Bartc wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 16:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>> If so, that language is Pascal. I sort
>>> of learned Lisp many, many years ago.  Nothing.  When I got my Atari
>>> ST, the
>>> big thing was Logo. I spent hours on it.  Nothing. As far as I can tell
>>> Pascal is a pretty good cut at a working form of pseudocode.  One huge
>>> advantage over C is that types and variables and initial values are
>>> different things and you damn well know it while it is going on.
>>> Pascal also
>>> makes very clear the difference between a small integer and a character.
>>> Pascal's wordiness may also make you appreciate C more when you learn
>>> the
>>> two languages in that order.
>>
>> But Pascal is an odd suggestion, at least for those reasons!  Pascal is
>> horrid to work in because it is so restrictive
>
> The main restrictions (IIRC) were problems with the type system in not
> being able to deal with generic arrays and strings, instead of fixed
> length ones. Also the entire application had to be in one source file
> (the version I used anyway).
>
> OK for teaching (the type system was otherwise cool, IMO), but a few
> tweaks would have been it more practical for real applications.
>
>> and, in my experience,
>> students hate it.
>
> What did they want to learn instead? It could be that they'd heard of C
> or C++, which may have acquired a certain reputation, but some might
> have changed their minds when they actually used them!
>
>> The big plus point (and it should not be ignored) is
>> the vast number of good books available that use or are about Pascal.
>> And because it a language from another century, many can be picked up
>> for pennies.
>
> Pascal is about the same age as C, and probably most C compilers
> implement the standard from the last century. Pascal has just become
> unpopular.
>


Pascal was designed as a teaching language.

-- 
Les Cargill

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

#62995

Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

> Bartc wrote:
> > On 31/05/2015 16:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> >> The big plus point (and it should not be ignored) is
> >> the vast number of good books available that use or are about Pascal.
> >> And because it a language from another century, many can be picked up
> >> for pennies.
> >
> > Pascal is about the same age as C, and probably most C compilers
> > implement the standard from the last century. Pascal has just become
> > unpopular.
> 
> Pascal was designed as a teaching language.

And being strictly B&D* it's a good teaching language. It's about all it
_is_ good for, but still.

Richard

* If you have the wisdom to stick with Pascal, and not get yourself
infected with Pascal Extended which misses the entire point of Pascal.

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

#62871

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 7:39:03 AM UTC-7, Bart wrote:
> On 30/05/2015 15:10, David Kleinecke wrote:
> 
> > I hate to do this in a group devoted to C but I want to repeat the
> > recommendation by RB to use Inform 6/7.
> 
> I'd never heard of these languages, but they appear to be long-winded 
> scripting languages for writing interactive games.
> 
> They can just about be used to represent algorithms (they seem to 
> contain forms of functions, variables, loops and conditionals), but the 
> algorithm would be lost in the text!
> 
> What would you use to express an algorithm to someone else in a 
> language-neutral manner? It would be some sort of pseudo-code.
> 
> While C introduces all sorts of extra punctuation, restrictions and 
> implementation details to worry about (plus the ecosystem needed to 
> execute the source), some of these languages add cruft of their own.
> 
> (No, I don't have alternative suggestions, except that a language that 
> can used to code almost directly from an algorithm is worth looking at. 
> Maybe someone should just implement pseudo-code.)


I think you don't appreciate the jump the average student must make
before she grasps how communicating with a computer - at the programming
level - works. I imagine you yourself were blessed with the kind of mind
that made that jump instantly. Most people find it hard to make. Inform 
6/7 is a good way to make this jump more attractive to the stident.

PS: I watched one very smart man fail to learn programming because he 
not could stand the agony of making mistakes. I suspect this is more
common than programmers realize. Programmers make lots of mistakes and
one must learn to be blase about them. Writing and rewriting stories is
a good way to learn that and Inform 6/7 are tools for writing 
interactive fiction (not games).

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

#62959

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 11:01:59 AM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 7:39:03 AM UTC-7, Bart wrote:
> > On 30/05/2015 15:10, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > 
> > > I hate to do this in a group devoted to C but I want to repeat the
> > > recommendation by RB to use Inform 6/7.
> > 
> > I'd never heard of these languages, but they appear to be long-winded 
> > scripting languages for writing interactive games.
> > 
> > They can just about be used to represent algorithms (they seem to 
> > contain forms of functions, variables, loops and conditionals), but the 
> > algorithm would be lost in the text!
> > 
> > What would you use to express an algorithm to someone else in a 
> > language-neutral manner? It would be some sort of pseudo-code.
> > 
> > While C introduces all sorts of extra punctuation, restrictions and 
> > implementation details to worry about (plus the ecosystem needed to 
> > execute the source), some of these languages add cruft of their own.
> > 
> > (No, I don't have alternative suggestions, except that a language that 
> > can used to code almost directly from an algorithm is worth looking at. 
> > Maybe someone should just implement pseudo-code.)
> 
> 
> I think you don't appreciate the jump the average student must make
> before she grasps how communicating with a computer - at the programming
> level - works. I imagine you yourself were blessed with the kind of mind
> that made that jump instantly. Most people find it hard to make. Inform 
> 6/7 is a good way to make this jump more attractive to the stident.
> 
> PS: I watched one very smart man fail to learn programming because he 
> not could stand the agony of making mistakes. I suspect this is more
> common than programmers realize. Programmers make lots of mistakes and
> one must learn to be blase about them. Writing and rewriting stories is
> a good way to learn that and Inform 6/7 are tools for writing 
> interactive fiction (not games).

Hmm. So did it evolve from Zork? 

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

#62961

On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 9:51:53 PM UTC-7, luser droog wrote:
> On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 11:01:59 AM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 7:39:03 AM UTC-7, Bart wrote:
> > > On 30/05/2015 15:10, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I hate to do this in a group devoted to C but I want to repeat the
> > > > recommendation by RB to use Inform 6/7.
> > > 
> > > I'd never heard of these languages, but they appear to be long-winded 
> > > scripting languages for writing interactive games.
> > > 
> > > They can just about be used to represent algorithms (they seem to 
> > > contain forms of functions, variables, loops and conditionals), but the 
> > > algorithm would be lost in the text!
> > > 
> > > What would you use to express an algorithm to someone else in a 
> > > language-neutral manner? It would be some sort of pseudo-code.
> > > 
> > > While C introduces all sorts of extra punctuation, restrictions and 
> > > implementation details to worry about (plus the ecosystem needed to 
> > > execute the source), some of these languages add cruft of their own.
> > > 
> > > (No, I don't have alternative suggestions, except that a language that 
> > > can used to code almost directly from an algorithm is worth looking at. 
> > > Maybe someone should just implement pseudo-code.)
> > 
> > 
> > I think you don't appreciate the jump the average student must make
> > before she grasps how communicating with a computer - at the programming
> > level - works. I imagine you yourself were blessed with the kind of mind
> > that made that jump instantly. Most people find it hard to make. Inform 
> > 6/7 is a good way to make this jump more attractive to the stident.
> > 
> > PS: I watched one very smart man fail to learn programming because he 
> > not could stand the agony of making mistakes. I suspect this is more
> > common than programmers realize. Programmers make lots of mistakes and
> > one must learn to be blase about them. Writing and rewriting stories is
> > a good way to learn that and Inform 6/7 are tools for writing 
> > interactive fiction (not games).
> 
> Hmm. So did it evolve from Zork?

Well. ...

Zork was not the beginning. The beginning is the program called 
"Colossal Cavern" or "Adventure". And there were other lines of 
devopment besides Zork. Inform 6/7 is one of the tools for writing
fictions and its innards do not evolve fom Zork. From a programming
POV Zork was a dead end. Zork left no descendents for seveal reasons
the most important of which seems to have been that it was not open
source.

Interactive Fiction remains a niche field but it is very much alive.

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

#62967

> "luser droog"  wrote in message 
> news:841ebc64-6ff2-461b-ba9d-20793a02c32e@googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> Hmm. So did it evolve from Zork?

[OT]>

LOL!:

http://fractallife247.deviantart.com/art/Log-on-the-river-Phee-530166628

Are you a fan of the morphing maps in Beyond Zork?

You can free the unicorn in more than one way.

lol...

;^) 

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

#62960

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 12:42:14 AM UTC-5, luser droog wrote:
> A friend of mine asked for advice about how to get into programming.
> So I just ordered K&R2 and K&P (The Unix Programming Environment).
> 
> Is there anything else more recent that I should get to supplement 
> these for the 21st century? Or is enough to get a good start, jathink?

So, K&R2 arrived in the mail and I gave it to my friend and
he already signed up for an online course learning Python.
And he's already submitted the first assignment. Apparently
they have an online IDE so he doesn't even need to touch a
terminal or a shell.

Well, I'll see him again when K&P is delivered. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web