Re: What's the position of pointers

Richard wrote:

Chris Dollin <chris.dollin@xxxxxx> writes:

Richard wrote:

Chris Dollin <chris.dollin@xxxxxx> writes:

Richard wrote:

You do not recommend an entirely different language to someone to learn
something as core and basic is pointer usage. The basics ARE simple and
any teacher worth his salt can get it across with a debugger and an OHP
in 2 or 3 minutes.

Or without a debugger. One might want a debugger to show how your
local implementation does things; one doesn't need one to explain

Normally one is only interested in ones local implementation.

No, /mornally/ one isn't interested in one's local implementation;
one is interested in teaching or understanding the language & code
one is writing.

You are being purposely difficult.

No, it comes naturally.

In the context of TEACHING. i.e it is
on THAT implementation that one is using tools to demonstrate the
theory. I have done a lot of it. And successfully (according to 3rd
party adjudication).

I have never said that you haven't. What I'm saying is that I
don't think that's the best way to teach pointers, because it
introduces unnecessary details & tools.

But one
can learn what a pointer is and how dereferencing works etc etc on ones
local implementation before moving on to "platform independence".

Oh, yes. We just don't have to deal with the vagaries of the local
implementation while doing so. I don't understand your apparent
obsession with /starting/ with implementation-specific details
when

It Is Not Necessary And It Is Distracting.

What are you talking about?

Using a debugger in teaching pointers (for C; I make no claims
about their utility or otherwise in teaching assembly language).

How can I NOT use implementation "specifics"
when I am demonstrating it ON an implementation.

You can avoid mentioning the implementation-specific details of
how pointers and pointer operations are represented. I'm happy
to grant that you need an implementation-specific implementation
/of C/.

Are you seriously suggesting that showing someone how pointers
work in a debugger using hex representations of a memory address
is going to ruin them for ever?

Do you think I said anything closely resembling that? Because
I didn't. This is a strawman.

/My/ claim is that it /is not necessary/ to use a debugger to
teach about C pointers, and that they can be taught just as
effectively debugger-free [in general; there will be outliers
in both directions].

what they /mean/. (This is especially useful when it means one isn't
having to explain a debugger at the same time as a programming
language.)

I'm not quite sure from what angle you are coming there.

I'm coming from the angle of not having to teach several things
at once.

You are erecting meaningless straw men to support your rather strict
approach to C.

No, I'm adding an additional feature to the argument.

Showing a pointer in a debugger is hardly killing them.

And I never said otherwise. Whose strawman is this, then?

Did you never hear of learn by doing?

Never. The idea is completely strange to me. I have no idea
what you're talking about.

Holy cow.

I suppose it has some aspects of a religious argument.

The benefits of
them seeing and using these things on a real machine in a real
development tool totally obliterates any "added complexity". I hae sat
in lectures on languages with no hands on and I fall asleep in no
time.

Strawman. The conflation of "without a debugger" and "no hands-on"
is yours, not mine.

Maybe you are differnet. Most people are not. most people like the
practical approach.

Some do, some don't; that's a separate question of learning styles.

a 2 hour lecture on semiconductors is easily
improved on by an hour in a lab with an oscilloscope.

I suspect that depends on the topic at hand.

A debugger is a
tool that shows values of pointer and the memory to which they point (in
the real world system I have used).

No doubt.

You're becoming a bit of a prig and a bore. You deny that using a
debugger to demonstrate pointers is useful? Really?

I'm claiming it is /unnecessary/ and that they (and the rest of C,
as it happens) can be taught /without/ resorting to using a
debugger. In general. If one doesn't want to clutter the student's
minds with implementation-specific details.

But I know from experience that teaching pointers (in any language) is
trivial if you use the right tools and examples and dont try to be too
clever too soon. It really is trivial and basic to any understanding of
programming, efficiency and underlying processing.

Yes, it's perfectly straightforward.

Yet you deny that using hands on approach makes it even easier?

No; see above.

Strange.

From whom demons flee.

PS "Never. The idea is completely strange to me. I have no idea
what you're talking about." is NOT SERIOUS. Just in case anyone
thought otherwise.

--
'It changed the future .. and it changed us.' /Babylon 5/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell,
registered no: 690597 England Berks RG12 1HN

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats the position of pointers
    ... something as core and basic is pointer usage. ... The basics ARE simple and ... any teacher worth his salt can get it across with a debugger and an OHP ... Normally one is only interested in ones local implementation. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Whats the position of pointers
    ... something as core and basic is pointer usage. ... The basics ARE simple and ... any teacher worth his salt can get it across with a debugger and an OHP ... Normally one is only interested in ones local implementation. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Problem with the compiler? Pointers? Unknown.
    ... Is there a major bug in the Visual C++ .NET compiler version 7.1.3088 or what? ... I have one function called FullUnloadwhich checks the pointers for NULL, ... The debugger reports m_pMap as being 0xFFFFFFFF still, ... The next function accepts szFinalPath as a parameter: ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: Whats the position of pointers
    ... The basics ARE simple and ... any teacher worth his salt can get it across with a debugger and an OHP ... Normally one is only interested in ones local implementation. ... I *know* that in my style of teaching that pointers and similar are no ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Garbage collection problems
    ... for the type of applications I have ported (GUI programs in C, debugger, ... IDE, make utility) The ONLY change I did was ... Neither do I do XORing of pointers, ... Admittedly you're now talking about doing it at the application level rather than at the implementation level. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
Loading