Hi Amanda,
I agree with you--all but one comment. C at it was originally conceived
was not very efficient. However, with modern optimization techniques it
is sometimes possible to have a C program that is more efficient then
typical hand written assembly code. The problem with this type of
optimization is that it takes a very long time to compile even on a fast
machine. And no, I have never been able to write a "hello world
program" in C under DOS that can compete with my assembly version.
hello.c compiled is still more than 4000 bytes (I've gotten less under
Linux) and hello.asm produced a hello.com of 36 bytes. So I guess what
I'm saying is that I only partially disagree.
Take Care,
Jim
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Amanda
Lee wrote:
> At least you were taught the more difficult and, in the case of Assembler
> Language, more efficient. C is not really an efficient language because
> it carries with it a lt of overhead. However, as compared with Visual C,
> Visual Basic, JAVA, Oracle, Access and others, C is preferable.
>
> I have over 25 years experience in Software Development and maintenance.
> I have coded in a few different languages on various platforms except
> Unix/Linux which is where I'm a newbie these days. I guess my fun time
> was when I programmed Assembler Language applications on IBM Mainframes
> for about 9 years.
> The trend is to place too much emphasis upon what I call code in a box.
> There's a lot of utility in this but it doesn't work as a onesize fits all
> and sooner or later, if the developers involved don't know what really
> comprises the inside of that boxful of code, then this is how applications
> are literally thrown away and this becomes very costly.
>
> I believe Victor, that in the longrun, what you have studied will give you
> the edge.
>
> Amanda Lee
>
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Victor Tsaran wrote:
>
> > Amanda, you are right. I met a lot of so-called "hard coders" during my
> > studies at the university who thought that they could do everything.I
> > graduated just a year ago and at my university, Temple University in Philly,
> > Visual C++ was only a small fraction of the program. Mostly C, Assembly and
> > C++, but on Unix and VMS. We were given a chance to try Visual C on Win NT
> > platform, but only for comparison purposes. Now I think Java is overtaking
> > slowly.
> > Vic
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Amanda Lee" <amanda at shellworld.net>
> > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: Computer Science
> >
> >
> > > Nope, Unix, Mainframes aren't standard anymore. The college grads we get
> > > these days at Verizon have no clue what Unix or Mainframes are all about.
> > > Everything is taught on a Windows-based Platform. I believe JAVA is
> > > taught, probably Visual Basic, Maybe sometimes C Language but usually C
> > > Plus Plus which was actually abandoned in the project I work on for
> > > straight C Language.
> > >
> > > I would think in the future though, there will be a change back to at
> > > least teaching Linux since it can run on a less expensive platform. It's
> > > pretty disgraceful how the content of Computer Sciences education has been
> > > degraded and these kids coming out have an ego bigger than life and think
> > > they can take on the World in a day!
> > >
> > > They really struggle when they can't understand how to program and the
> > > quality of code coming out is pretty awful. There is even this mentality
> > > in the Corporate World which indicates that one can learn everything they
> > > need to on the job and yet they can't figure out why there are so many
> > > problems with efficiency and the costs resulting from poor efficiency.
> > >
> > > Amanda Lee
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 jwantz at hpcc2.hpcc.noaa.gov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > I'm not going to get involved in the "bookshare wars', but since you
> > were
> > > > chastizing others on this list because most people use WINDOWS and not
> > > > linux, I think its only fair to point out that your computer science
> > > > department is very nonstandard. Though I am a meteorologist, not a
> > > > computer science person, I know many computer science students in the
> > past
> > > > and the present. Teaching WINDOWS programming is very nonstandard. I
> > > > would guess that at least 90 percent of the schools teach programming on
> > a
> > > > UNIX variant of some kind. In the past thre was a fair amount of people
> > > > using VMS. However, a lot of beginning C and C++ classes did use
> > > > Turbo/Borland. WINDOWS programming is much more difficult than UNIX
> > > > programming, so I suppose you are to be congratulated for making it
> > > > through such a tough curriculum.
> > > >
> > > > Jim Wantz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
