Ben Bacarisse said:
Richard Heathfield said:
Scudder Consulting said:
I have plans to train some students for C in coming weeks.
I am badly looking for C programming assignments fot them.
Need 1) lots of them per topiic 2) Should be doable for beginners
Oh great, another of the clueless wants to teach.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. [...]
I waited a while, to calm down, after reading this but even now, when
calm, I think it needs a comment.
If that is the first time you have encountered the above comment (in the
precise form into which you have truncated it), you need to get out
more. It is a well-known saying which I merely extended in a way which
wrapped around to encompass *everybody*, not just teachers. Whether you
noticed that, I cannot tell, but I suspect you may not have done.
You may have had bad experiences of
all of all your teachers but it is patently false in almost all cases
for simple tasks (e.g. reading)
Reading is *not* a simple task. It is far more complex than programming.
And it is often taught very badly. For example, it's really not a good
idea to teach a child the alphabet and then, within days, tell him to
forget it and learn a whole new one ("this one is much easier"). And
it's sirtunlee not u gwd iedeer tw teech him to uez this hoel nue
alfubet fau a hoel yeer, and then decide to teach him yet *another*
alphabet. Many British people of about my age have atrocious spelling
because they were exposed to this farrago of alphabets at an
impressionable age.
I learned to read at a fairly young age, using what I might now call
Alphabet 1, and while being taught to use Alfubet 2 I continued to read
avidly at home, where all the books used Alphabet 1, so for a while I
was bi-alphabetical, so to speak. When they changed the alphabet yet
again, I recognised instantly that Alphabet 3 == Alphabet 1 (with which
I was still very familiar), and so I had no trouble switching from
Alfubet 2 to Alphabet 3. But many people my age did have a lot of
trouble with it.
Reference:
http://www.itafoundation.org/alphabet.htm
and often false for more complex ones like programming.
s/more complex/simpler/
One of my English teachers thought "collier" had only one "l", and
called me a liar for claiming that the dictionary thought otherwise
(thus introducing me to the wonderful concept of deceit for the very
first time). All the mathematics teachers I ever had believed 1 to be
prime. I had a chemistry teacher who couldn't spell "beryllium". My
first ever C tutor thought that loops terminated as soon as their
condition was false (which, if it were the case, would massively
increase the size of the object code for all loops, since *every*
translated instruction within the loop would have to be followed by a
test and conditional jump!), and all my C tutors voided main with
carefree abandon. I remember a systems analysis lecturer who honestly
believed that multiplication was non-commutative (he thought that the
saving given by multiple discount percentages depended on the order in
which the discounts were applied). I have experienced enough examples
of poor teaching to last me a lifetime. On the other hand, I have
encountered very few examples of *excellent* teaching. Some, yes. But
precious few.
Teaching programming is a trivial task compared to that of teaching
reading, and yet it is often done very badly indeed. I truly hope that
your programming teachers were exceptions. Most of mine weren't.
Fortunately, however, I did have one wonderful programming teacher,
whose name modesty prevents me from revealing.
<snip>