Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2159 comp.software-eng:1322 comp.lang.c++:2896 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!dlb!megatest!djones From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: "Expertise" Message-ID: <3241@goofy.megatest.UUCP> Date: 1 Apr 89 07:58:24 GMT References: <7531@thorin.cs.unc.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca Lines: 91 From article <7531@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, by coggins@coggins.cs.unc.edu (Dr. James Coggins): > In article windley@cheetah.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley/20000000) writes: >> >>>In article <354@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> isaac@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (isaac.j.champagne) writes: >>> >>> So what are some good texts that cover the fundamentals of programming? >>> I'm particularly interested in: >>> 1.A text with more examples than confusing computer science >>> theory (preferably w/examples in C) >>> 2.How about some good background in data structures? >>> 3.How about programming paradigms? It seems like the "how to" >>> of programming may be more important than lots of >>> theories. >>> >>... >>That said, I think you're missing the point. You seem to think that you >>can be a good programmer without a funcdamental understanding of what's >>going on. This is a serious mistake. >> Maybe YOU'RE missing the point. I think he really wants to understand what's going on, and that he has a good attitude about how to go about it. He sincerely seeks advice, and he wants to see some examples. One good example is worth a whole bag of theory... *IF* you've got your thinking cap on. The fact that he is interested in data-structures suggests to me that he may very well have said chapeau in place. Most prospective students would ask about algorithms. But the data is the thing. (Are the things?) "Ask not what your program can do for you, ask what it does it to." >>If you think that you can DESIGN >>programs without the kind of important background knowledge that theory >>provides then you're in for a rude awakening. >> I suspect that he is keenly interested in getting the background knowlege that theory provides... complete with instructive examples! > >>Phil Windley | windley@iris.ucdavis.edu > > Good answer, Phil. > Hmmm... > I have a new question, and maybe you folks can fill in more > (even more irritating) examples. > > Why does... > > ...anyone who has written a program (in BASIC, say) > think he's a computer scientist? > [ A dozen or more of these follow... djones ] > ...anyone who is using generally accepted methods from his discipline > think he's doing the right thing? > [ etc.. ] Do you *really* want an "irritating example"? Okay, you asked for it. No offense, (really!) ... ... but the top twenty "thinks-he's-a-computer-scientist" bozos that I have met were all C.S. Professors. And the rest were postgrads. Most of them just haven't had enough experiece building and maintaining computers and software to know beans about it. They're all frustrated mathematicians, and would rather to play with pencils and paper than with silicon. (Before you get too angry at me, let me hasten to point out that I was one of these jerks for a couple of years... Visiting Associate Prof at a certain large midwestern university which I dare not name.) I had plenty of company, I can assure you! A visiting lecturer from Oxford, whose name you probably would know, once told me that he hadn't "programmed in anger" in over three years! He was quite proud of it. He was busy coauthoring some of the most worthless theoretical pabulum imaginable all written in a pidgin computer language. Most of of his theoretical results showed how to pipeline toy processes together to produce composite processes with completely unpredictable behavior, which he called "chaos". So far as I know, he never showed how to get one to do anything useful. Like I said, no offense... present company excluded.., (except for the ex-me), etc.., etc..