From: cyberman@toz.buffalo.ny.us (Cyberman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: formal programming ed
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:39:39 GMT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r


 -=> Dixie Cup spoke of "Re: formal programming ed" <=-
To All at 07-20-92  17:39
 >Sorry real world application would make most CS student change
 >thier majors.  They are often too difficult for most programmers
 >let alone someone who hasn't learned the fundamentals.  Learning
 >by example is the best way.  Writing programs that perform semi
 >useful tasks like memory mangament and outlinging etc, is much
 >better than tossing a real application like a word processor to a
 >neophyte.  This way they aren't CRUSHED by the shear SCALE of the
 >program.

 DC> NOT!  I'm very sorry but you have a weird idea of what is hard and
 DC> what is not hard to do.  The main project in my high school pascal
 DC> class was to write a functional and useful word processor.  It wasn't

Of course remember this is the end of the course not the
begining.  our final project in Compilor construction was a
function Pascal compilor written as recursive decent.  This would
have been impossible at the begging of the course.  Basically you
must know most everything before you apply it.  I'm sure you can
understand this.  Perhaps you misunderstood what I said.

 DC> supposed to include extras like spell checking but it wasn't supposed
 DC> to be as basic as ed.  Anyway, writing the word processor built on

Adding a spell checker is relatively easy.

 DC> everything we learned during the year.  I'm not a computer science
 DC> major, but have taken a couple of courses and find that a lot of CS
 DC> majors shouldn't be CS majors because they don't take the time to play
 DC> around with what they learn in class. Consequently they don't know how
 DC> to program.  Sure they know what the different pieces are, but they
 DC> don't know how to put them together.

I did notice that.  Hence why I don't recomend trying to write a
ray traceing program before you have had Data Structures even.

 DC> Also, CS is such a broad field that it is hard to generalize what 
 DC> real world applications really are.  It's a big difference working for
 DC> Microsoft as a software engineer/designer than working for Computer
 DC> Science Corporation maintaining and updating telemetry monitoring
 DC> software for NASA. It's also a whole 'nother ball game writing air

Thier is?  uh huh.  Not really.

 DC> traffic control software for an airport in Iceland.  The reason I

A freind of mine wrote the SW for Ohare he used to be at Stanford
and I think he went to Carnegie Mellon to get his doctorate.

 DC> mention these examples is because I know people who do theses things. 
 DC> It's hard to get a job in your field that deals with the specific
 DC> things you're interested.  In any field there is a broad base of
 DC> general knowledge that you should acquire as an undergraduate.  Ugh, I

But I'm not an undergraduate so why are you saying this? :)

 DC> lost my train of thought.  I shouldn't even bother posting this, but
 DC> what the heck.  My general feeling is that most professors don't know
 DC> how to teach.  It isn't that students don't know how to learn.
 DC> University professors are NOT required to take teaching examinations
 DC> or education courses in most states.  That's why students are always
 DC> anxious to know what a prof is like before taking a course.  It's
 DC> usually pot luck.

Your right most don't.  Heck most HIGH SCHOOL teachers can't
teach either.  [didn't learn BEANS in HS from the teacher I read
the BOOKS!]  Talking courses in education won't help either.
Mainly because either you have the ability to teach or you don't
it has to be part of your personality not something you learn.

        Stephen Cyberman@Toz.Buffalo.NY.US
        Scripted at Tue  07-21-1992  01:06:48

... Almost anything is easier to get into than out of
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10