«

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

"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

> 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.

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".

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.

On Oct 3, 5:29*am, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Francois Grieu <fgr...@gmail.com> 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

In article <i8c9mm$lac$>,
Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> 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)

"William Hughes" <> wrote in message
news:b14ef2be-08d2-41a0-9dcb-...
> On Oct 3, 5:29 am, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Francois Grieu <fgr...@gmail.com> 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

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) kst- <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"

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) kst- <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"