Re: New

niklasb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
(in article
<1132791787.554911.5220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

> As to whether C++ is a reasonable first language, I think that depends
> in part on how it's taught.

So far, so good.

> C++ can be used and taught as a fairly
> high-level language, but it is often taught from the bottom up,
> starting with the lowest-level language features as if it were C
> (e.g., using pointers and null-terminated strings instead of the
> standard string class) which tends to overwhelm beginners and
> over emphasizes the wrong things.

Disagree completely. Ignoring low-level details (which,
contrary to popular belief, actually do matter) is one of the
main things wrong with modern CS education today. Take one look
at the number of posts by people confused about such basics as
precision loss in floating point calculations (which used to be
a freshman or sophomore level numerical analysis COURSE, not 5
minutes in a lecture. That is but one example. Next, those
that can't figure out that the actual number doesn't change, but
only the representation when 'converting' from decimal to binary
to octal to hex, etc. as another example. Not having a clue
about memory addressing and virtual memory, data type overflow,
basic numerical operations like and, or, xor, and friends, you
get the idea.

Yet, every recent college grad can whip out a web page in short
order, and fill it with incorrect information about his/her
favorite programming language. Oh goodie.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw





.