Re: the first programming language: C

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Francois Grieu, Oct 3, 2010.

  1. On 03/10/2010 07:26, io_x wrote:
    > What about to teach C to 14-15 people that want to know it?


    I wonder if it would not be better to first teach a language
    where one is protected from crashes in case of out-of-bound
    index.

    Francois Grieu
    Francois Grieu, Oct 3, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Francois Grieu

    BartC Guest

    "io_x" <> wrote in message
    news:4ca85255$0$18652$...
    >
    > "Francois Grieu" ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:4ca83e90$0$12932$...
    >> On 03/10/2010 07:26, io_x wrote:
    >>> What about to teach C to 14-15 people that want to know it?

    >>
    >> I wonder if it would not be better to first teach a language
    >> where one is protected from crashes in case of out-of-bound
    >> index.
    >>
    >> Francois Grieu

    >
    > crashes are very good because make think there is something wrong
    > at last make think me


    But the crash may occur several billion statements after whatever it was
    went wrong.

    Or something happens that is not obvious, and you only find out later when
    half your files have been deleted.

    --
    Bartc
    BartC, Oct 3, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Francois Grieu

    riccardo Guest


    > Programmers need to know about errors immediately as they learn. Not
    > hide behind wimpy catch all mechanisms.


    Agreed. Nevertheless, being aware of your
    mistakes and catch errors in C requires a
    very deep and good knowledge on the subject,
    which is something 15yo kids can't have.
    riccardo, Oct 4, 2010
    #3
  4. Francois Grieu

    riccardo Guest

    On 10/04/2010 12:16 PM, riccardo wrote:
    >
    >> Programmers need to know about errors immediately as they learn. Not
    >> hide behind wimpy catch all mechanisms.

    >
    > Agreed. Nevertheless, being aware of your
    > mistakes and catch errors in C requires a
    > very deep and good knowledge on the subject,
    > which is something 15yo kids can't have.
    >

    ehehe I've mistaken the numbers ;) siwtch "15yo kids" with "novice people".
    riccardo, Oct 4, 2010
    #4
  5. On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:13:37 +0100, BartC wrote:

    > "io_x" <> wrote in message
    > news:4ca85255$0$18652$...
    >>
    >> "Francois Grieu" ha scritto nel messaggio
    >> news:4ca83e90$0$12932$...
    >>> On 03/10/2010 07:26, io_x wrote:
    >>>> What about to teach C to 14-15 people that want to know it?
    >>>
    >>> I wonder if it would not be better to first teach a language where
    >>> one is protected from crashes in case of out-of-bound index.
    >>>
    >>> Francois Grieu

    >>
    >> crashes are very good because make think there is something wrong at
    >> last make think me

    >
    > But the crash may occur several billion statements after whatever it was
    > went wrong.
    >
    > Or something happens that is not obvious, and you only find out later
    > when half your files have been deleted.


    Even more fun when they're not deleted, just corrupted. :)
    Kelsey Bjarnason, Oct 4, 2010
    #5
  6. On Oct 3, 5:29 am, Richard <> wrote:
    > Francois Grieu <> writes:
    > > On 03/10/2010 07:26, io_x wrote:
    > >> What about to teach C to 14-15 people that want to know it?

    >
    > > I wonder if it would not be better to first teach a  language
    > > where one is protected from crashes in case of out-of-bound
    > > index.

    >
    > >    Francois Grieu

    >
    > Why would you wonder that? Its exactly the opposite you should be
    > thinking of. All this runtime checks type stuff does and GC is encourage
    > lazy programming.
    >


    Runtime Checks? GC? Luxury!

    When I were a lad we didn't have any of this namby-pamby stuff.
    By gum we were real men. I would program in the snow, on an
    four bit computer, toggling in machine instructions through
    the front panel.
    Kids these days ....

    - William Hughes
    William Hughes, Oct 4, 2010
    #6
  7. In article <i8c9mm$lac$-september.org>,
    Richard <> wrote:
    >riccardo <> writes:
    >
    >>> Programmers need to know about errors immediately as they learn. Not
    >>> hide behind wimpy catch all mechanisms.

    >>
    >> Agreed. Nevertheless, being aware of your
    >> mistakes and catch errors in C requires a
    >> very deep and good knowledge on the subject,
    >> which is something 15yo kids can't have.
    >>

    >
    >I disagree completely. The concepts of pointers and safe handling is
    >something any half sentient being can master when taught properly.


    Yes, but today's 15-year-olds aren't quite "half sentient".

    --
    But the Bush apologists hope that you won't remember all that. And they
    also have a theory, which I've been hearing more and more - namely,
    that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the
    2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future
    policies, and that's what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.

    (Paul Krugman - Addicted to Bush)
    Kenny McCormack, Oct 4, 2010
    #7
  8. Francois Grieu

    BartC Guest

    "William Hughes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Oct 3, 5:29 am, Richard <> wrote:
    >> Francois Grieu <> writes:
    >> > On 03/10/2010 07:26, io_x wrote:
    >> >> What about to teach C to 14-15 people that want to know it?

    >>
    >> > I wonder if it would not be better to first teach a language
    >> > where one is protected from crashes in case of out-of-bound
    >> > index.

    >>
    >> > Francois Grieu

    >>
    >> Why would you wonder that? Its exactly the opposite you should be
    >> thinking of. All this runtime checks type stuff does and GC is encourage
    >> lazy programming.
    >>

    >
    > Runtime Checks? GC? Luxury!
    >
    > When I were a lad we didn't have any of this namby-pamby stuff.
    > By gum we were real men. I would program in the snow, on an
    > four bit computer, toggling in machine instructions through
    > the front panel.


    You had actual switches? *That*'s luxury!

    (In fact the first board computer I made didn't have switches; I couldn't
    afford them. Instead there was a trailing earth wire to touch various pins
    in turn to set up a data byte.)

    --
    Bartc
    BartC, Oct 4, 2010
    #8
  9. superpollo <> writes:
    > William Hughes ha scritto:

    [...]
    >> Runtime Checks? GC? Luxury!
    >>
    >> When I were a lad we didn't have any of this namby-pamby stuff.
    >> By gum we were real men. I would program in the snow, on an
    >> four bit computer

    >
    > you had *four* bits? my, we only had three!


    You had *bits*? All we had were zeros; we *dreamed* of having ones.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Oct 4, 2010
    #9
  10. superpollo <> writes:
    > Keith Thompson ha scritto:
    >> superpollo <> writes:
    >>> William Hughes ha scritto:

    >> [...]
    >>>> Runtime Checks? GC? Luxury!
    >>>>
    >>>> When I were a lad we didn't have any of this namby-pamby stuff.
    >>>> By gum we were real men. I would program in the snow, on an
    >>>> four bit computer
    >>> you had *four* bits? my, we only had three!

    >>
    >> You had *bits*? All we had were zeros; we *dreamed* of having ones.

    >
    > you had *zeros*??? my, we only had capital Os...


    You had *capital* Os?

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Oct 4, 2010
    #10
  11. Francois Grieu

    Willem Guest

    Keith Thompson wrote:
    ) superpollo <> writes:
    )> Keith Thompson ha scritto:
    )>> superpollo <> writes:
    )>>> William Hughes ha scritto:
    )>> [...]
    )>>>> Runtime Checks? GC? Luxury!
    )>>>>
    )>>>> When I were a lad we didn't have any of this namby-pamby stuff.
    )>>>> By gum we were real men. I would program in the snow, on an
    )>>>> four bit computer
    )>>> you had *four* bits? my, we only had three!
    )>>
    )>> You had *bits*? All we had were zeros; we *dreamed* of having ones.
    )>
    )> you had *zeros*??? my, we only had capital Os...
    )
    ) You had *capital* Os?

    The secret is to bang the rocks together, guys!


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
    Willem, Oct 4, 2010
    #11
  12. Francois Grieu

    ralph Guest

    On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:42:55 +0200, superpollo <>
    wrote:

    >Willem ha scritto:
    >> Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> ) superpollo <> writes:
    >> )> Keith Thompson ha scritto:
    >> )>> superpollo <> writes:
    >> )>>> William Hughes ha scritto:
    >> )>> [...]
    >> )>>>> Runtime Checks? GC? Luxury!
    >> )>>>>
    >> )>>>> When I were a lad we didn't have any of this namby-pamby stuff.
    >> )>>>> By gum we were real men. I would program in the snow, on an
    >> )>>>> four bit computer
    >> )>>> you had *four* bits? my, we only had three!
    >> )>>
    >> )>> You had *bits*? All we had were zeros; we *dreamed* of having ones.
    >> )>
    >> )> you had *zeros*??? my, we only had capital Os...
    >> )
    >> ) You had *capital* Os?
    >>
    >> The secret is to bang the rocks together, guys!

    >
    >you had *rocks* ?!?


    The first liar - never has a chance.

    -ralph
    <g>
    ralph, Oct 4, 2010
    #12
  13. "riccardo" <> wrote in message
    news:i8c9h2$932$...
    >
    >> Programmers need to know about errors immediately as they learn. Not
    >> hide behind wimpy catch all mechanisms.

    >
    > Agreed. Nevertheless, being aware of your
    > mistakes and catch errors in C requires a
    > very deep and good knowledge on the subject,
    > which is something 15yo kids can't have.
    >


    granted, I have been programming in C since the 90s...

    how old was I in 1999?... 15...
    how old was I in 1995?... 11...

    admittedly though, my skills at programming didn't really start to not suck
    until the 2000s, but this was also the decade of ever increasing code
    complexity and rapidly dropping raw progress rates (due mostly to codebase
    size getting ever larger, where my recent years are faced with the issue of
    code being overly large...).


    so, 1995 era: I was fairly satisfied with 3D rendered cubes, wire-frames,
    and trivial resource-file managers.

    1999 era: I have moved up to OS-kernel type tasks (booting up a simplistic
    OS kernel, ...), and had also written a trivial database engine (ability to
    mess with tables essentially stored as CSV text files).

    2002: simplistic 3D engines (fly around a 3D model), simplistic interpreters
    (Scheme-style);
    2004: slightly more advanced 3D engines (walk around a scene with
    lightmapping), and a JavaScript-like scripting language (a descendant is
    still in use);
    2006: first efforts with native code generation (via ASM and JIT);
    2007: wrote a C compiler/VM (based on prior JIT, originally intended to help
    with 3D engine effort);
    2008...2010: 3D engine efforts largely stall (at doing much useful), VM just
    gets bigger and more complex with no major or notable new features (partial
    Java and C# support... meaningless... giving JS-like language transparent C
    interfacing... well, maybe half-useful...).

    a standing problem though being that one can't code themselves into having
    relevance...
    a poor FPS-like game made in large part from scavenged code and artwork, and
    a compiler/VM framework, really don't count for much...

    the codebase breaking 1Mloc almost 1 year ago now, well, that is not exactly
    a valuable achievement, more just serving to show the terrors of code
    running out of control than anything else...


    combined with life in general, one may be faced with the problem that
    everything is, infact, pointless...

    really, nothing can be done which actually manages to matter...

    or such...
    BGB / cr88192, Oct 4, 2010
    #13
  14. On 4 Oct, 13:04, superpollo <> wrote:
    > BartC ha scritto:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > "William Hughes" <> wrote in message
    > >news:....
    > >> On Oct 3, 5:29 am, Richard <> wrote:
    > >>> Francois Grieu <> writes:
    > >>> > On 03/10/2010 07:26, io_x wrote:
    > >>> >> What about to teach C to 14-15 people that want to know it?

    >
    > >>> > I wonder if it would not be better to first teach a  language
    > >>> > where one is protected from crashes in case of out-of-bound
    > >>> > index.

    >
    > >>> >    Francois Grieu

    >
    > >>> Why would you wonder that? Its exactly the opposite you should be
    > >>> thinking of. All this runtime checks type stuff does and GC is encourage
    > >>> lazy programming.

    >
    > >> Runtime Checks? GC? Luxury!

    >
    > >> When I were a lad we didn't have any of this namby-pamby stuff.
    > >> By gum we were real men.  I would program in the snow, on an
    > >> four bit computer, toggling in machine instructions through
    > >> the front panel.

    >
    > > You had actual switches? *That*'s luxury!

    >
    > > (In fact the first board computer I made didn't have switches; I
    > > couldn't afford them. Instead there was a trailing earth wire to touch
    > > various pins in turn to set up a data byte.)

    >
    > you had *wires*? my, we used a glass lens to focus cosmic rays upon the
    > pins!


    what were your lenses made of if they could focus cosmic rays?! Lead?
    Nick Keighley, Oct 8, 2010
    #14
  15. Nick Keighley <> writes:
    > On 4 Oct, 13:04, superpollo <> wrote:
    >> BartC ha scritto:
    >> > "William Hughes" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> On Oct 3, 5:29 am, Richard <> wrote:
    >> >>> Francois Grieu <> writes:
    >> >>> > On 03/10/2010 07:26, io_x wrote:
    >> >>> >> What about to teach C to 14-15 people that want to know it?

    >>
    >> >>> > I wonder if it would not be better to first teach a  language
    >> >>> > where one is protected from crashes in case of out-of-bound
    >> >>> > index.

    >>
    >> >>> >    Francois Grieu

    >>
    >> >>> Why would you wonder that? Its exactly the opposite you should be
    >> >>> thinking of. All this runtime checks type stuff does and GC is encourage
    >> >>> lazy programming.

    >>
    >> >> Runtime Checks? GC? Luxury!

    >>
    >> >> When I were a lad we didn't have any of this namby-pamby stuff.
    >> >> By gum we were real men.  I would program in the snow, on an
    >> >> four bit computer, toggling in machine instructions through
    >> >> the front panel.

    >>
    >> > You had actual switches? *That*'s luxury!

    >>
    >> > (In fact the first board computer I made didn't have switches; I
    >> > couldn't afford them. Instead there was a trailing earth wire to touch
    >> > various pins in turn to set up a data byte.)

    >>
    >> you had *wires*? my, we used a glass lens to focus cosmic rays upon the
    >> pins!

    >
    > what were your lenses made of if they could focus cosmic rays?! Lead?


    You had *logic*?

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Oct 8, 2010
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Casey Hawthorne
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    979
    Jarek Zgoda
    Aug 4, 2006
  2. jmDesktop
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    870
    Simon Brunning
    Mar 26, 2008
  3. riccardo

    Re: the first programming language: C

    riccardo, Oct 4, 2010, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    827
    Felix Palmen
    Oct 5, 2010
  4. Ben Pfaff

    Re: the first programming language: C

    Ben Pfaff, Oct 8, 2010, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    308
    Seebs
    Oct 10, 2010
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    215
    Ameya the ______
    Nov 2, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page