3 Jan
2012
3 Jan
'12
9:59 a.m.
Depends who you ask. I was told by a guy with 3 years of Java programming under his belt
that Java is much more powerful than assembler, after all, Java is object oriented! ;-)
Anyway this ought to be an interesting subthread. I'll make the popcorn!
------Original Message------
From: Chuck Guzis
Sender: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
ReplyTo: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: teaching programming to kids - Re: Looking for 8080/Z80 BASIC
Sent: 3 Jan 2012 09:53
On 3 Jan 2012 at 2:28, Richard wrote:
It's not really a fair comparison as we expect a
"modern" language to
do much more than FORTRAN 66.
Do what, exactly? Are you saying that simple languages can't "do"
what more complicated ones do? Does the simplest---machine code, do
less than, any HLL, modern or ancient? Is C less capable than
Python?
--Chuck
3 Jan
3 Jan
10:12 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Vintage Coder <vintagecoder at aol.com> wrote:
Depends who you ask. I was told by a guy with 3 years
of Java programming under his belt that Java is much more powerful than assembler, after
all, Java is object oriented! ;-)
For fun show him the book title
Object oriented assembly language
L. Dirfman Windcrest 1990
and define powerful :)
you can do anything in assembler that the processor allows
ask him if he can write a hardware driver in a couple of k memory on a
6502 in Java.
Dave Caroline
10:16 a.m.
No argument from me. I've coded assembler for most of my life. This young guy just
didn't get it. I couldn't even get him to understand the examples of things Java
couldn't do on the platform we were talking about. My coworker turned to him and said
"you do realize Java eventually gets translated to assembler in order for it to
actually do anything, don't you?" Even that didn't work!
"We give up."
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Caroline <dave.thearchivist at gmail.com>
Sender: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:12:25
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: teaching programming to kids - Re: Looking for 8080/Z80 BASIC
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Vintage Coder <vintagecoder at aol.com> wrote:
Depends who you ask. I was told by a guy with 3 years
of Java programming under his belt that Java is much more powerful than assembler, after
all, Java is object oriented! ;-)
For fun show him the book title
Object oriented assembly language
L. Dirfman Windcrest 1990
and define powerful :)
you can do anything in assembler that the processor allows
ask him if he can write a hardware driver in a couple of k memory on a
6502 in Java.
Dave Caroline
1:59 p.m.
On 03/01/12 5:16 AM, Vintage Coder wrote:
No argument from me. I've coded assembler for most
of my life. This young guy just didn't get it. I couldn't even get him to
understand the examples of things Java couldn't do on the platform we were talking
about. My coworker turned to him and said "you do realize Java eventually gets
translated to assembler in order for it to actually do anything, don't you?" Even
that didn't work!
"We give up."
Some people should be doing something else. From what I see around:
Maybe 80% of the current industry.
Why? They didn't learn and they won't learn.
--Toby
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Caroline<dave.thearchivist at gmail.com>
Sender: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:12:25
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: teaching programming to kids - Re: Looking for 8080/Z80 BASIC
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Vintage Coder<vintagecoder at aol.com> wrote:
Depends who you ask. I was told by a guy with 3
years of Java programming under his belt that Java is much more powerful than assembler,
after all, Java is object oriented! ;-)
For fun show him the book title
Object oriented assembly language
L. Dirfman Windcrest 1990
and define powerful :)
you can do anything in assembler that the processor allows
ask him if he can write a hardware driver in a couple of k memory on a
6502 in Java.
Dave Caroline
2:14 p.m.
No argument
from me. I've coded assembler for most of my life. [...]My
coworker turned to him and said "you do realize Java eventually gets
translated to assembler in order for it to actually do anything, don't
you?" Even that didn't work!
Some people should be doing something else. From what I see around:
Maybe 80% of the current industry.
Why? They didn't learn and they won't learn.
4 Jan
4 Jan
1:23 a.m.
On 03/01/12 9:14 AM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm sitting here with a debugger single stepping through PowerPC
assembly language and I don't even work in the industry anymore.
Exactly. People who want to learn will always find a way. :D
--Toby
No argument from me. I've coded assembler for most
of my life. [...]My
coworker turned to him and said "you do realize Java eventually gets
translated to assembler in order for it to actually do anything, don't
you?" Even that didn't work!
Some people should be doing something else. From what I see around:
Maybe 80% of the current industry.
Why? They didn't learn and they won't learn. I'm toying with writing an SECD VM in 6502
assembly language, though.
3 Jan
3 Jan
7:30 p.m.
New subject: teaching programming to adults
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Toby Thain wrote:
Some people should be doing something else. From what
I see around:
Maybe 80% of the current industry.
Why? They didn't learn and they won't learn.
80% of EVERY industry!
30 years ago, a student couldn't handle remedial college arithmetic. His
"counselor" suggested, that to handle his cognitive deficiencies, he
should switch his major to "Computer Programming"! I talked to the
student, and recommended another change; he is now a happy successful MBA.
The "counselor" is now president of the college. . . . and people wonder
why defenestration is necessary
One must keep in mind the pace of a college class. Would you really want
to do recursion in somebody's first day? OK, now scale that to a college
class - recursion belongs in the second semester.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
7:45 p.m.
New subject: teaching programming to adults
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Toby Thain wrote:
to understand recursion, you need to understand recursion
also see K&R 2nd ed(not first ed) lookup recursion in the index
Dave Caroline
Some people should be doing something else. From
what I see around:
Maybe 80% of the current industry.
Why? They didn't learn and they won't learn.
80% of EVERY industry!
30 years ago, a student couldn't handle remedial college arithmetic. ?His
"counselor" ?suggested, that to handle his cognitive deficiencies, he
should switch his major to "Computer Programming"! ?I talked to the
student, and recommended another change; he is now a happy successful MBA.
The "counselor" is now president of the college. ?. . . and people wonder
why defenestration is necessary
One must keep in mind the pace of a college class. ?Would you really want
to do recursion in somebody's first day? ?OK, now scale that to a college
class - recursion belongs in the second semester.
8:34 p.m.
New subject: teaching programming to adults
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Dave Caroline wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin
at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Brought to you by the Group To Stamp Out, Eliminate and Remove Redundancy
Group.
g.
:)
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical
minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd
by the clean end.
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Toby Thain wrote:
to understand recursion, you need to understand recursion
also see K&R 2nd ed(not first ed) lookup recursion in the index
Some people should be doing something else. From
what I see around:
Maybe 80% of the current industry.
Why? They didn't learn and they won't learn.
80% of EVERY industry!
30 years ago, a student couldn't handle remedial college arithmetic. ?His
"counselor" ?suggested, that to handle his cognitive deficiencies, he
should switch his major to "Computer Programming"! ?I talked to the
student, and recommended another change; he is now a happy successful MBA.
The "counselor" is now president of the college. ?. . . and people wonder
why defenestration is necessary
One must keep in mind the pace of a college class. ?Would you really want
to do recursion in somebody's first day? ?OK, now scale that to a college
class - recursion belongs in the second semester.
2 p.m.
On 03/01/12 4:59 AM, Vintage Coder wrote:
Depends who you ask. I was told by a guy with 3 years
of Java programming under his belt that Java is much more powerful than assembler, after
all, Java is object oriented! ;-)
From the point of view of "abstraction", he is right. The abstractions
in Java *are* much more powerful.
--Toby
Anyway this ought to be an interesting subthread.
I'll make the popcorn!
------Original Message------
From: Chuck Guzis
Sender: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
ReplyTo: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: teaching programming to kids - Re: Looking for 8080/Z80 BASIC
Sent: 3 Jan 2012 09:53
On 3 Jan 2012 at 2:28, Richard wrote:
It's not really a fair comparison as we
expect a "modern" language to
do much more than FORTRAN 66.
Do what, exactly? Are you saying that simple languages can't "do"
what more complicated ones do? Does the simplest---machine code, do
less than, any HLL, modern or ancient? Is C less capable than
Python?
--Chuck
2:17 p.m.
I think this is the bone of contention. Some people view the power of a language based on
expressiveness, conciseness (is that a word) etc. and others look at power from a
standpoint of what can be accomplished with it.
Both views have their place, depending on your orientation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au>
Sender: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:00:44
To: General Discussion On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: teaching programming to kids - Re: Looking for 8080/Z80 BASIC
On 03/01/12 4:59 AM, Vintage Coder wrote:
Depends who you ask. I was told by a guy with 3 years
of Java programming under his belt that Java is much more powerful than assembler, after
all, Java is object oriented! ;-)
From the point of view of "abstraction", he is right. The abstractions
in Java *are* much more powerful.
--Toby
Anyway this ought to be an interesting subthread.
I'll make the popcorn!
------Original Message------
From: Chuck Guzis
Sender: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
ReplyTo: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: teaching programming to kids - Re: Looking for 8080/Z80 BASIC
Sent: 3 Jan 2012 09:53
On 3 Jan 2012 at 2:28, Richard wrote:
It's not really a fair comparison as we
expect a "modern" language to
do much more than FORTRAN 66.
Do what, exactly? Are you saying that simple languages can't "do"
what more complicated ones do? Does the simplest---machine code, do
less than, any HLL, modern or ancient? Is C less capable than
Python?
--Chuck
5:12 p.m.
It's not really a fair comparison as we expect a
"modern" language
to do much more than FORTRAN 66.
Do what, exactly? [...] Does the
simplest---machine code, do less
than, any HLL, modern or ancient? Is C less capable than Python?
5:58 p.m.
Yeah, yeah, I know. ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mouse <mouse at rodents-montreal.org>
Sender: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:12:29
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: teaching programming to kids - Re: Looking for 8080/Z80 BASIC
Depends who you
ask. I was told by a guy with 3 years of Java
programming under his belt that Java is much more powerful than
assembler, after all, Java is object oriented! ;-)
Unless he also knew a half-dozen other languages and had at least a
decade of programming experience (the ten-thousand-hour rule), I doubt
he was competent to comment on the question.
There are two meanings in which it makes sense to talk about the power
of a programming language.
One is what can be accomplished with it in theory. In this sense,
practically all languages are equivalent; you'll have to look rather
hard to find a language that's not Turing-complete. (The first example
in serious use that comes to mind is the p-code used by BPF: it
(deliberately) does not support any form of looping.)
The other is how easy the language makes it for the programmer to
express an algorithm, or a class of algorithms, of interest. In this
sense languages vary widely, and have specializations. If I get to
pick the language, then if I'm writing numerical code, it's FORTRAN.
Matrix processing? APL. Device driver? C. Expert system? Lisp.
Et cetera.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
It's not really a fair comparison as we expect a
"modern" language
to do much more than FORTRAN 66.
Do what, exactly? [...] Does the
simplest---machine code, do less
than, any HLL, modern or ancient? Is C less capable than Python? 
6:21 p.m.
On 3 Jan 2012 at 9:59, Vintage Coder wrote:
Depends who you ask. I was told by a guy with 3 years
of Java
programming under his belt that Java is much more powerful than
assembler, after all, Java is object oriented! ;-)
Anyway this ought to be an interesting subthread. I'll make the
popcorn!
All computer languages, including assembly, are merely lexical
conveniences for working with the machine language of any given
computer. They serve two purposes:
1. They provide portability between architectures, to some extent,
but very few languages actually reflect the architecture of the
hardware they run on. Someone, at some time, has to make a decision
as to what machine code a statement will generate.
2. They are inventions to relieve the human mind cope with the
fragilities of its memory and the inability to keep track of many
things, as well as the human inability to do accurate arithmetic.
So go out and invent your own language! They're all just mind games--
.and it's pointless to argue about them. Institutions would like to
standardize on one, but like all human language, that's not likely to
happen.
As far as teaching, no language that I'm aware of teaches the
fundamentals of how a computer operates.
--Chuck
4521
days inactive
4522
days old
14 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dave.thearchivist＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au -
vintagecoder＠aol.com