11:02 a.m.
hi,
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
programing, which programing language one should start with? In the ocean of
the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one justify it.
Some say Python but again they say it is Perl which is better every time
then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but again some emphasis to
use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB or COBOL and some say to
learn web based programing like HTML, PHP, ASP.Net. In this ocean who is
just starting to learn which one he should prefer?
Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have the
basic understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like the CPU.
Not to generate the big projects for the management processes, not even
banking system but to know the basic of programing like how to handle the
machines at the first, for that purpose, for the the scratch level purpose
and for the one which is good even for Linux, what programing language
should one like me, initiate?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:09 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Hot quite, here it is:
Great.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
9:52 a.m.
On 12/21/2010 03:48 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org
<mailto:gaf@blu.org>> wrote:
I learned C from K&R, from the tutorial that was included with
Unix, and
the fact that I was told I had to maintain the Unix CShell.
Fortunately
at the time I knew a number of languages including IBM 360/370,
AutoCoder, Burroughs, PDP-8, PDP-11, and Raytheon PTS1200/PTS100
assembly. My real learning experience was looking at the code
generated
by COBOL. You can see how some compilers generate the code, but
you can
also see how some decisions you make at the high level language affect
the actual code. I was taught that looping through an array by using
pointers was much faster than subscripting through the same array.
BUT,
when working with the compiler group on Tru65 Unix I found that
subscripting was actually much faster when using an optimizing
compiler
because the compiler must dereference every pointer, but when
subscripting, it can keep the array base in a register. I had some
old C
code that I used to first test that pointers are better than
subscripting, and I then tested that in the Tru64 compiler on the
Alpha,
and subscripted loops were faster.
Basically, the first rule I always use is to write code clearly and
concisely. Remember that someone (you or someone else) may have to
debug
it. If you need to make the code work faster, then is the time to
analyze, and we have some really neat tools like graphical profilers
that can point out bottlenecks, and many times these surprise even the
most experienced programmers.
Basically, the CPU generally does a few things. While there are major
differences, between CISC and RISC, you load an address into a
register,
perform some operation on that register, such as add, subtract,
multiply, divide, or, not, and, and a few more. Then you save the
contents into memory. Of course there are branch and conditional
branch
where you go to a different part of the code based upon a true or
false
condition. To really understand computer logic, an interesting
approach
is to build a computer using plugboard parts. Remember, everything
in a
computer is binary not decimal, not octal (3 bit representation of
binary), not hexadecimal (4 bit representation).
--
Jerry Feldman
This is much related with Assembly language.
Yes and no. It is related to an understanding of what a computer really
does. While CPUs today are very complex, such as out-of-order execution,
the basic underlying premise is the same. If you understand binary
arithmetic and logical arithmetic, then you have an understanding of
what a CPU really does. You certainly don't need to understand what an
or gate or and gate is, but you need to understand what happens when you
add 2 positive integers and get a negative result, or when trying to
print out a double precision float beyond the 15th decimal digit where
the same calculation in Excel or OpenOffice calc rounds at the 15th digit.
While this discussion really has been not Fedora related, Fedora
supports all the programming languages discussed here. Decide what
programming language you want to start with (ignore religionists), and
simply get an online tutorial. Once you have a firm grasp of the
concepts of programming, you can move on to things like OOP.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
4:11 a.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:30 AM, James McKenzie
<jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>wrote:
Not legally, anywhere. However, the Second Edition is available from
Amazon and other book retailers. It is not very expensive. It
would
cost me more to mail you the extra copy I have to you than it would be
to buy it (even in the United States.)
James McKenzie
Some truly told, "majority of the most useful technology is free now a
days". But I was aware of only open source, but now include that book too,
if it is really of very low cost, :)-.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
11 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:44 PM, James McKenzie
<jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
+1
I learned to program in HP BASIC, COBOL and FORTRAN, but 'c' is the way to learn
how to program, no 'seat belts'. I have TWO copies of K&Rs book as well as
the 'C Puzzle Book'.
I have K&R's book, too, and that's how I learned c, but I already knew
PL/I, Fortran, and, of course, Basic. I wouldn't recommend any of
those languages for a beginning programmer. I wouldn't recommend c++,
either.
There are two ways of thinking about referring to "things" in
programming. You can refer to memory locations (as in c or Fortran),
or you can refer to "objects." Neither way is, in my never humble
opinion, perfect or even adequate, but you will be stuck with one or
the other (or both at the same time, as in c++) and whoever is trying
to teach you whatever language will probably make you just as confused
as everyone else appears to be. Not only that, since programming is
more about theology than anything else, whoever you ask will be trying
to persuade you to join their religious sect. So, far, you have been
approached mostly by "c" street evangelists.
I've started using Python as a scripting language, and I think it's a
better language for the random computer user to know than most others
because it can work as a hack and run scripting language or as the
basis for more serious programming, but that's my opinion of the
moment. If you *do* learn Python, I think the fork into most other
languages will be easier. Do **not** begin with c. If you want to
deal with machines at that level, learn and use assembly language,
which can be a lot of fun and is not encumbered with funky
abstractions (other than what the OS forces on you).
Robert.
4:24 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Michael D. Setzer II <
mikes(a)kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
OpenCobol is an implementation of COBOL that works on Linux and
windows, and it takes Cobol code, but converts it into C that is then
compiled.
I have heard of a number of projects being migrated from mainframe systems
to opencobol. The C code does the job, but writing it in C is generally
smaller,
but a lot of work.
So C is better then? If you compare with Python, which is better place to
start with?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
11:28 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 10:00 +0000, John Haxby wrote:
>
>
> On 17 December 2010 09:41, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
>
> That said, I'd choose "C" to getting started. It's a bit of
a
> rough ride
> in the beginning, but it pays off in longer terms.
>
>
> Actually, no, C is dead easy to start but it gets really difficult
> really quickly. Consider these for a beginner:
>
> * Write the declaration of signal(3) -- it takes two parameters, an
> integer and a pointer to a function that takes an integer paramater
> and returns void. Explain why the parentheses are needed.
>
> * Why does "a + b == 0" work the way you expect but "a & b ==
0" does
> not? Are you sure it doesn't?
>
> * What is the difference between "const char *s" and "char * const
> s"?
>
> * What is the difference between "char *s" and "char s[]"?
>
> Admitedly the very first of these is not likely to come up as a
> beginner, but the other three will, and they'll bite you good and
> hard.
>
> C is not a simple language, it has a lot of subtlety and it is
> incredibly expressive, but I would not use it as the beginning
> language for someone who wants to learn to program. I'd start with a
> language that was designed carefully. There aren't any Algol68
> compilers any more :-) but I'd choose python or java to learn to
> program. Once you know what you want to do then you can go for
> something else, something applicable to what you want to do. When you
> know the basics those questions about C are still difficult, but at
> least you're not trying to understand them at the same time as knowing
> what happens to a parameter when you pass it to a function or, for
> that matter, what a function is.
>
> jch
>
I have taught 4 different languages professionally, BASIC, PASCAL,
FORTRAN(actually a language with syntax similar to FORTRAN), and C. I
prefer to teach people C.
I am not a real C guru, but I can tell you that it has the power to
either great abstraction, or to be very close to the machine. It
depends on how the programmer views the problem. I know that there are
people who will argue with me on that point, but lets not get
sidetracked here. The goal of a programmer is to produce useful working
code that does the jobs needed to be done.
There are anomalies in all languages. Some of them are inherent to the
language, some are due to the compilation process, in the conversion
from a somewhat human recognizable syntax to machine code in several
steps.
So to talk about the things that have bothered one person in one
language is not really material at this point.
One could produce many examples from c aside from the ones you have
waved off where even experts disagree as to what c syntax is supposed
to mean, and most of the code I've seen is peppered with potential
mysteries as to why an asterisk or ampersand appears or does not
appear where it does.
And in some cases those
issues can compiler dependent (as the A+b==0 case where the potential
errors come from whether a and b are integer, float, double or long
double, and what is the defined value of true (b==0 can be 1 or -1,
integer or long. If 1, it is binary 0000 0000 0000 0001 and -1 is 1111
1111 1111 1111 for example) And the C definition makes char and byte
synonymous at this time, although new character sets are represented
differently.
So the discussions of evaluation are compiler dependent and in most
cases somewhat machine dependent as well.
My view is of a programmer who does mostly embedded type stuff, so it
is different from a person who specializes in say graphics, or
databases, or even text manipulation, or perhaps a medical or biological
programmer. Furthermore, some programmers specialize in mathematical
areas, such as filtering, or high precision, or signal processing.
Others work in theoretical physics.
Choosing Python to manage long chain mathematics would probably not be
too efficient or productive.
Unless you become adept at calling compiled mathematical libraries
(probably written in c or Fortran) from Python, which is exactly why
Python is relatively popular as a scientific/mathematical scripting
language.
Fortran would not be good for text
manipulation. Lisp would not make a good report generator (in my
opinion anyway), APL would not be good for database administration.
I do all kinds of programming in C. I cannot do a full database from
scratch in C, and would probably use SQL in some form for that, but for
most "quick hack" tools I still use C from the command line. Most of my
programs are repeat use, but require very little interaction and little
in the way of feedback (think YUM as an example).
When working on microcontrollers I use Assembly for most programs.
When working in my professional field as a Test Programmer, I rely on C,
BASIC, assembly and machine language (bit control of parts is required
to test them).
This is all to say that the ultimate language you use will be mostly
determined by your career path, but you will most likely use more than
one.
To learn, I recommend Intel Assembler code and C. Mostly because they
are somewhat good examples of both power and complexity, and can produce
quick simple programs that do useful things and represent real
accomplishment.
And many of the things that are dangerous/subtle/hard-to-learn about c
are much less obscure if you are an assembly-language programmer. In
fact, they seem quite natural. Trouble is, they will *not* seem
natural to a beginning programmer.
Robert.
4:03 p.m.
On 17Dec2010 15:04, Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Rodolfo Alcazar Portillo <nospaze(a)gmail.com
| > wrote:
[...]
| I guess, yes, C would be good but do you agree that it is good over Python
| (for the beginners like me, having known the fact that programing principles
| are same)?
I would strongly recommend Python over C for learning to program.
The syntax is very clean and clear (unlike Perl, which is visually very
noisy); it is nearly like writing out and English language description
of your code and watching it run.
There are no fiddly memory management things (unlike C, where strings
are fixed length memory arrays, and there are many pitfalls).
The documentation is pretty good (see docs.python.org).
Of course later you will want to learn other things to do particular
things or just to use other paradigms.
I would not recommend Perl for learning. And I used to write a lot of Perl.
I do suggest you learn a little about the UNIX shell (bash, ksh, sh,
zsh; all dialects of the core scripting language "sh"); being able to
write simple pipelines and shell control structures (for loops, file
patterns etc) is very useful.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
Declaration of external bzero at block scope can yield surprises
- IRIX C compiler
2:47 p.m.
I'd go with python as the default language for anything
that doesn't require speed or access to the metal.
For a beginner, python has the bonus that
indentation is part of the syntax.
For speed, one can use C, fortran, java, C++ or assembly.
For access to the metal, one can use C, C++ or assembly.
With the right kind of linker tricks, I suspect one could also use fortran.
At my current job, I program in C and assembly for AVRs.
My first program here was in python.
It replaced a venerable perl program.
The venerable wouldn't run after a perl interpreter update.
Defaults aside, the choice of language can be strongly
influenced by the additives available.
Some of my current python code uses
a serial IO library and a GUI library.
Without them, I might have chosen differently.
Perl is noted for having lots of additives available.
--
Michael hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"Pessimist: The glass is half empty.
Optimist: The glass is half full.
Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
11:13 a.m.
Hi;
I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest.
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 22:32 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
hi,
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
programing, which programing language one should start with? In the
ocean of the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one
justify it. Some say Python but again they say it is Perl which is
better every time then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but
again some emphasis to use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB
or COBOL and some say to learn web based programing like HTML, PHP,
ASP.Net. In this ocean who is just starting to learn which one he
should prefer?
Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have
the basic understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like
the CPU. Not to generate the big projects for the management
processes, not even banking system but to know the basic of programing
like how to handle the machines at the first, for that purpose, for
the the scratch level purpose and for the one which is good even for
Linux, what programing language should one like me, initiate?
--
Parshwa, Two basic questions: 1) Do you want to use programming as a way
to understand the inner workings of your computer? Or, 2) Do you want to
acquire a programming language primarily to have the most used/useful
programming skills in order to write a program? (at least useful to
you). Both these objectives may be intertwined, but which is your
primary goal now? Different goals, different programs.
--
Regards Bill
Fedora 14, Gnome 2.32
Evo.2.32, Emacs 23.2.1
4:39 a.m.
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:04:30 +0530
Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Rodolfo Alcazar Portillo
<nospaze(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
My first programming experience started with Coco-TRS80 basic. Then I
> knew I will love computers.
>
> But as amazed as I was, I was hungry to learn the guts of programming.
> Lucky me, I was introduced to the Norton Pink Shirt Book. Wow. Learning
> Pascal, Cobol and Fortran in one year, with 12 years old turned to be a
> piece of cake. C would follow.
>
> The book deals mainly with simple hardware of those ages and a little
> bit of 8086 assembler, AFAIR. Knowing all of that, understanding Basic,
> C or any programming paradigm turned to be easy for me.
>
> Then I worked for 15 years. A couple of years ago, on vacation, I read
> the "C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie,
> and made all exercises, just for fun. That's another beautiful book.
>
> That's my history. I would advise to start from the low level: study a
> bit of hardware, to be able to learn C or/and Assembler (low level
> programming, maybe you can skip assembler, or just read some code).
> After, enjoying high-level language programming (java, informix, perl,
> php, python, etc.) will be your prize.
>
I guess, yes, C would be good but do you agree that it is good over Python
(for the beginners like me, having known the fact that programing principles
are same)?
(If anyone has a pdf copy of the Pink-Shirt Book, I would thank if
> mailed, my original is 5000 miles away :)
>
> Cheers!
>
I am first time hearing this book name.
Bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_%2B_Data_Structures_%3D_Programs
BR, Bob
4:06 a.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:30 AM, James McKenzie
<jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>wrote:
Sure, how to get this book? Is it available online somewhere?
Not legally, anywhere. However, the Second Edition is available
from
Amazon and other book retailers. It is not very expensive. It would
cost me more to mail you the extra copy I have to you than it would be
to buy it (even in the United States.)
James McKenzie
Some truly told, "majority of the most useful technology is free now a
days". But I was aware of only open source, but now include that book too,
if it is really of very low cost, :)-.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
8:10 a.m.
On 12/21/2010 05:39 AM, Bob Marcan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:04:30 +0530
Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Rodolfo Alcazar Portillo <nospaze(a)gmail.com
>> wrote:
> My first programming experience started with Coco-TRS80 basic. Then I
>> knew I will love computers.
>>
>> But as amazed as I was, I was hungry to learn the guts of programming.
>> Lucky me, I was introduced to the Norton Pink Shirt Book. Wow. Learning
>> Pascal, Cobol and Fortran in one year, with 12 years old turned to be a
>> piece of cake. C would follow.
>>
>> The book deals mainly with simple hardware of those ages and a little
>> bit of 8086 assembler, AFAIR. Knowing all of that, understanding Basic,
>> C or any programming paradigm turned to be easy for me.
>>
>> Then I worked for 15 years. A couple of years ago, on vacation, I read
>> the "C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie,
>> and made all exercises, just for fun. That's another beautiful book.
>>
>> That's my history. I would advise to start from the low level: study a
>> bit of hardware, to be able to learn C or/and Assembler (low level
>> programming, maybe you can skip assembler, or just read some code).
>> After, enjoying high-level language programming (java, informix, perl,
>> php, python, etc.) will be your prize.
>>
>
> I guess, yes, C would be good but do you agree that it is good over Python
> (for the beginners like me, having known the fact that programing principles
> are same)?
>
>
> (If anyone has a pdf copy of the Pink-Shirt Book, I would thank if
>> mailed, my original is 5000 miles away :)
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>
> I am first time hearing this book name.
>
>
Bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_%2B_Data_Structures_%3D_Programs
BR, Bob
This is an excellent book. We used it when I took the data structures
course for my masters degree. In retrospect, I would have preferred
Knuth, but this was and is a great book to learn data structures. At the
time, Pascal was hot, and as I mentioned before it is a good language to
teach these concepts. But, it would drive me crazy at work when I would
see a C program written by a Pascal programmer :-). Actually, Knuth is
the Bible, and Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs is the prayer book.
Another issue for the OP is where you want to use the skills you learn.
If you learn Python, but want to write code for the Android, then maybe
Java might be the way to go. But, simply to learn a programming
language^<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_%2B_Data_Structures_...
, Python is relatively easy and well documented. If you are going to be
a system admin person then scripting languages such as Perl, CShell, and
BASH scripts might be useful.
I have taught C at a local University, and one group of people learned
very well and another group really hated it.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
3:12 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 02:16 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> That technology is really amazing that whatever in your
heart comes,
> you enter it through keyboard and in a string of '0's and '1's it is
> read by the processor which then takes the proper action, finally it
> comes into the wire from where your internet connection is coming
> (into the form of EM wave of proper frequency, amplitude & time) and
> then it is further processed! It's really amazing.
The 'C' language does not deal directly with the
Internet. It is more
basic. Much of the higher level code used for the internet is or was
originally written in 'C' in order to get the computer to accept and
transmit data, to build internet packets and to adhere to traffic
protocols.
Actually, computers don't use '1' and '0's. The '1' and
'0's are just
textual representations of High Voltage and Low Voltage which is what
the machine really uses. It is a handy representation because binary
math (two digit athematic) gives the same results as the combining of
deferent sets of high voltages and low voltages.
> If I happen to steer you wrong, I am sure
> there are lots of people on this list who will jump in with
> corrections.
>
> Yes, but I don't think so if it is wrong.
--
Regards Bill
Fedora 14, Gnome 2.32
Evo.2.32, Emacs 23.2.1
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM, William Case
<billlinux(a)rogers.com>
wrote:
I found the answer in "The C Programming Language" by Brian W.
Kernighan
and Dennis M. Ritchie. This book is such a basic that it is
often
referred to just as K&R. If you try to simply use this book
as a
tutorial for the C language it is too difficult. Almost every
sentence
contains a new concept. But K&R and 'C' are closest to the
metal. It's
description and particularly its appendices are used by
programmers
mainly as a reference. It really is a text on how to best
write code so
that the compiler can use your 'C' code by translating it into
machine
language. It is also, therefore, basic instructions for
compiler writers
on how they have writer their compilers.
Sure, how to get this book? Is it available online somewhere?
I don't think you can get it legitimately online -- I have the hard
cover text. It maybe available online now. Google "The C Programming
Language" by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie. It is sold
everywhere that sells computer books. It is not expensive -- not like
other computer text books.
2:48 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
I learned C from K&R, from the tutorial that was included with Unix, and
the fact that I was told I had to maintain the Unix CShell.
Fortunately
at the time I knew a number of languages including IBM 360/370,
AutoCoder, Burroughs, PDP-8, PDP-11, and Raytheon PTS1200/PTS100
assembly. My real learning experience was looking at the code generated
by COBOL. You can see how some compilers generate the code, but you can
also see how some decisions you make at the high level language affect
the actual code. I was taught that looping through an array by using
pointers was much faster than subscripting through the same array. BUT,
when working with the compiler group on Tru65 Unix I found that
subscripting was actually much faster when using an optimizing compiler
because the compiler must dereference every pointer, but when
subscripting, it can keep the array base in a register. I had some old C
code that I used to first test that pointers are better than
subscripting, and I then tested that in the Tru64 compiler on the Alpha,
and subscripted loops were faster.
Basically, the first rule I always use is to write code clearly and
concisely. Remember that someone (you or someone else) may have to debug
it. If you need to make the code work faster, then is the time to
analyze, and we have some really neat tools like graphical profilers
that can point out bottlenecks, and many times these surprise even the
most experienced programmers.
Basically, the CPU generally does a few things. While there are major
differences, between CISC and RISC, you load an address into a register,
perform some operation on that register, such as add, subtract,
multiply, divide, or, not, and, and a few more. Then you save the
contents into memory. Of course there are branch and conditional branch
where you go to a different part of the code based upon a true or false
condition. To really understand computer logic, an interesting approach
is to build a computer using plugboard parts. Remember, everything in a
computer is binary not decimal, not octal (3 bit representation of
binary), not hexadecimal (4 bit representation).
--
Jerry Feldman
This is much related with Assembly language.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:46 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM, William Case <billlinux(a)rogers.com> wrote:
I am not a programmer, but I wanted the answer you seem to want. How
does the damn thing work? More explicitly:
How does human understandable information get converted by a machine
into electrical data; then store it; may or may not, transform, compare,
and/or relocate the data; and then re-present the data as information
meaningful to humans?
I found the answer in "The C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan
and Dennis M. Ritchie. This book is such a basic that it is often
referred to just as K&R. If you try to simply use this book as a
tutorial for the C language it is too difficult. Almost every sentence
contains a new concept. But K&R and 'C' are closest to the metal. It's
description and particularly its appendices are used by programmers
mainly as a reference. It really is a text on how to best write code so
that the compiler can use your 'C' code by translating it into machine
language. It is also, therefore, basic instructions for compiler writers
on how they have writer their compilers.
Sure, how to get this book? Is it available online somewhere?
A big however! I found that when I took my time, and worked each
new
concept through, with liberal use of google and some tutorial sites,
with some contemplation on my part, with some reference to the the basic
electrical properties of transistors, capacitors, Direct Current and
crystals, I was able to come to a fairly complete (or at least useful)
understanding of how my computer worked and what the text instructions
that I was imputing were doing.
In addition, I spent a couple of afternoons exploring assembly language
and the IS-32 instruction set. Looking at how compilers work, and how
they translate your text code into machine code (the '1' and '0's you
mentioned) from libraries makes the need for precise instructions (text
syntax) clear and less of a burden.
I found that by using K&R as a course outline rather than a final all
knowing, all teaching, tutorial book I was able to drill to the bottom
of everything that was happening inside my computer.
That technology is really amazing that whatever in your heart comes, you
enter it through keyboard and in a string of '0's and '1's it is read by
the
processor which then takes the proper action, finally it comes into the wire
from where your internet connection is coming (into the form of EM wave of
proper frequency, amplitude & time) and then it is further processed! It's
really amazing.
If you, like me, look for those Eureka! moments in life, you will
find
exploring the capabilities of your computer through the 'C' language is
a wonderful voyage of discovery. The ingenuity and creativity over the
last 50 years that has gone into making the metal, the electricity, and
the programming of a computer is truly a marvel.
Yes, I agree and wonder.
If this is the kind of approach that you are interested in respond
to
this post, and I will give you some hints and tricks about uncovering
the programming process.
Please do that, I would love that. It is a fact that I get less time to do
this all but I would, as it is of interest and a really cool.
If I happen to steer you wrong, I am sure
there are lots of people on this list who will jump in with corrections.
--
Regards Bill
Yes, but I don't think so if it is wrong.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
9:42 p.m.
On 12/21/10 6:18 PM, Matt Smith wrote:
On 12/21/10, James McKenzie<jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>
wrote:
> On 12/21/10 1:46 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM, William Case<billlinux(a)rogers.com
>> <mailto:billlinux@rogers.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I am not a programmer, but I wanted the answer you seem to want. How
>> does the damn thing work? More explicitly:
>>
>> How does human understandable information get converted by a machine
>> into electrical data; then store it; may or may not, transform,
>> compare,
>> and/or relocate the data; and then re-present the data as information
>> meaningful to humans?
>>
>> I found the answer in "The C Programming Language" by Brian W.
>> Kernighan
>> and Dennis M. Ritchie. This book is such a basic that it is often
>> referred to just as K&R. If you try to simply use this book as a
>> tutorial for the C language it is too difficult. Almost every
>> sentence
>> contains a new concept. But K&R and 'C' are closest to the
metal.
>> It's
>> description and particularly its appendices are used by programmers
>> mainly as a reference. It really is a text on how to best write
>> code so
>> that the compiler can use your 'C' code by translating it into
machine
>> language. It is also, therefore, basic instructions for compiler
>> writers
>> on how they have writer their compilers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, how to get this book? Is it available online somewhere?
> Not legally, anywhere. However, the Second Edition is available from
> Amazon and other book retailers. It is not very expensive. It would
> cost me more to mail you the extra copy I have to you than it would be
> to buy it (even in the United States.)
>
> James McKenzie
>
> --
> users mailing list
> users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
>
Can we please get c++ involved in the discussion, it runs circles
around C on all levels..
How? This is for a BEGINNER programmer who wants to learn about proper
structures and other programming 'stuff'.
Yes, once you learn PROPER programming, you can and should move onto
Object Oriented Programming. For this, I HIGHLY recommend learning
Java, not C++. Write once, run anywhere (just about.) C++ is write
once, compile a dozen times, fix hundreds of 'bugs'. You end up with
twelve different executables and possibly dozens of software versions.
James McKenzie
4:42 a.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:08 PM, n2xssvv.g02gfr12930 <
n2xssvv.g02gfr12930(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
I agree with it being easier to migrate from C++, rather than to C++.
Unfortunately C++ probably has a longer learning curve than most
other
programming languages. But the choice of programming language should
really be decided by the type of applications you intend to create, and
the target platforms. Especially if you're starting from scratch and
wish to create any application in a reasonable time period.
Regards
cpp4ever
Correct.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
11:12 a.m.
>>>> "Michael" == Michael Hennebry
<hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> writes:
Michael> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, n2xssvv.g02gfr12930 wrote:
> I agree with it being easier to migrate from C++, rather than to
> C++. Unfortunately C++ probably has a longer learning curve than
> most other programming languages. But the choice of programming
> language should really be decided by the type of applications you
> intend to create, and the target platforms. Especially if you're
> starting from scratch and wish to create any application in a
> reasonable time period.
Michael> The *default* should be python even for object-oriented
Michael> stuff. Python allows polymorphism and operator
Michael> overloading.
But not design-by-contract.
So Eiffel should be the default.
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
10:27 a.m.
I suggested it for that reason, you can use c++ very easily as if it
was C and this allows for a much easier transition in the future. C++
can be anything from super easy to super hard. There are many texts
that teach it on a basic level which is not much different than C.
On 12/22/10, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
On 12/21/2010 08:18 PM, Matt Smith wrote:
> Can we please get c++ involved in the discussion, it runs circles
> around C on all levels..
Basically, my company's product is written almost entirely in C++ and
after having been around C++ for a while, IMHO, it happens to be
reasonably well written and structured. In contrast I have been involved
with some C++ that was essentially C with a few C++ isms. I like C++,
but not as a person's first computer language.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
--
Sent from my mobile device
8:58 a.m.
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 13:31 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Aaron Konstam
<akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Most people who think they understand C++ will be humbled by
listening
to its developer explain how it can be used.
Really!
Yeah, really!!!
--
=======================================================================
Yow! Are we laid back yet?
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
12:44 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 05:31 AM, les wrote:
But as I recall, the alpha had some vector extensions and bytecoding
extensions that enabled faster indexing, which is why it ran faster with
indexed arrays ;-)
And as to representation, if you go to assembly language the choice of
octal or hex is often based upon the instruction declination of the
processor. For example the 8080 was octal, because the first 2 bits had
a specific segmentation of the instruction set, the next three could
choose a register or memory and the final three would make a choice
based upon the other two groups.
In the 6800 and later motorola processors, the representation was hex,
reflecting a broader register base and larger instruction flexibility.
Now that we have 64 bit processors, and multiple cores, the next step
will be a supervisor for the cores and then a new partitioning of the
instruction word, and I expect a new notation, probably 64 base of some
kind, because it will reflect the new reality of the core processors and
their inherent capabilities.
Since I cowrote the Alpha assembler for Windows NT and Tru64 Unix. Most
of the RISC chips had a large number of general purpose registers. The
trick is to use them effectively. You can easily use one as a base
register and one as an index register. Octal and Hex are just shorthand
notations for expressing binary. In the early days of computing things
were not standardized. For instance, the DEC PGP-8 was a 12-bit machine.
Octal was much more convenient for PDP-8s. Systems based on the byte
generally use hex. I would expect that some of the new processors have
some form of virtualization manager. Can you see Intel chips with a
VMWare supervisor and AMD chips with a Microsoft Hyper V.
I did spend a bit of time working on Intel's IA64 systems. But, try to
read the object code without having a nervous breakdown.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
12:35 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:01 PM, les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
But as I recall, the alpha had some vector extensions and bytecoding
extensions that enabled faster indexing, which is why it ran faster
with
indexed arrays ;-)
And as to representation, if you go to assembly language the choice of
octal or hex is often based upon the instruction declination of the
processor. For example the 8080 was octal, because the first 2 bits had
a specific segmentation of the instruction set, the next three could
choose a register or memory and the final three would make a choice
based upon the other two groups.
In the 6800 and later motorola processors, the representation was hex,
reflecting a broader register base and larger instruction flexibility.
Now that we have 64 bit processors, and multiple cores, the next step
will be a supervisor for the cores and then a new partitioning of the
instruction word, and I expect a new notation, probably 64 base of some
kind, because it will reflect the new reality of the core processors and
their inherent capabilities.
Regards,
Les H
'Inside a program talk'!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
4:39 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 15:43 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Matt Smith <smithm2(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Can we please get c++ involved in the discussion, it runs
circles
around C on all levels..
Ok.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
Since C++ is a preprocessor to C, how does it run circles around C?
Just asking.
Regards,
Les H
5:07 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 14:05 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On 12/22/2010 01:52 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org
> <mailto:gaf@blu.org>> wrote:
>
> A properly optimized simple C++ program should be able to perform
> as well
> as C.
>
> --
> Jerry Feldman
>
>
>
> Simply say, C++ is the daughter of C which has become more advanced.
I a way. C++ is essentially an Object Oriented version of C. While there
are common members of the 2 standards committees, they are currently 2
different languages. In my Northeastern C course, one of the examples I
used was a fully C standard compliant program, but it would not compile
in a C++ compiler. Some of the students were using Microsoft Visual C++,
and did not tell the compiler it was a C program. Basically they are
close. Additionally in C++ I am going to use the new and delete
operators to allocate and deallocate memory where in C, I'll use
malloc(3) and free(3) for the same thing. But, never malloc(3) and
free(3) in C++. I also don't like to get into discussions about what is
the best language. The choice of language to use for a project is based
on many factors. If the project is learning, go to a language that is
relatively easy to learn that uses the basic structures. I rarely write
assembler language directly, but many times I would simulate what I
wanted to do in C, then generate the assembly from there, and hand
optimize.
VERY well said. Thank you Jerry!
Regards,
Les H
5:06 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 13:49 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On 12/22/2010 01:40 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net
> <mailto:hlhowell@pacbell.net>> wrote:
>
> Since C++ is a preprocessor to C, how does it run circles around C?
> Just asking.
>
>
C++ is NOT a preprocessor to C. Some of the original C++ systems
certainly were, but nearly all C++ compilers are true compilers. A
properly optimized simple C++ program should be able to perform as well
as C. But, when you start taking into account template classes, and a
bunch of other things, then performance takes a back seat. Our code has
over 1,000,000 lines of code, and I would hate to have to maintain it as
a C system. (I'm glad I don't have to maintain it in the first place).
<off thread>
I guess I should have stated that as "could be a preprocessor".
I also must be showing my age ;-:) (showing the toothless, dentureless
smile)
Seriously, though the points you make about template classes, along with
over use of inheritance, and bulky code in some classes makes C++ really
a drag on high speed computing I think.
I use C a lot, probably too much, but I don't do much in the way of
huge programs. Most are 12,000 lines or less and I only get about 3
months to deliver them at most. Also the systems and people I deliver
to, don't have extensive OOP experience and since they often maintain,
or extend/maintain/modify the code, C++ would be a hardship on some of
that, where as C's basic structure is a bit more challenging, but gives
more direct control for their work. The largest code I ever personally
developed was just over 40,000 lines.
</offthread>
Regards,
Les H
2:30 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Rick Stevens <ricks(a)nerd.com> wrote:
I was on the ANSI C committee for a brief time when C was being spec'd
out back in the late '70s and early '80s. Our company was an
early
adopter of Whitesmiths' C on Vaxen and PDP-11s. PJ Plaugher of
Whitesmiths was the first secretary of the committee.
<rumination style="big_grin">
PJ had an interesting take on things. I remember that Whitesmiths
version of the now-standard "atexit()" function was called
"onexit()".
When reading the man page, the prototypes for the arguments were really
mucked up. In the "Bugs" section of the manpage, he said, "...the type
definitions defy description and are still wrong." Also, forgetting
the terminating null in the source string used with their "cpystr()"
(now "strcpy()") function was deemed "mildly perilous."
</rumination>
Technically C++ grew out of AT&T Bell Labs' Cfront, which was an OOP
pre-processor for C. The combination of C and Cfront was often referred
to as "C with classes".
When C++ was first being codified formally it was called "Incremental
C". Since "++" is the C increment operator, the name sort of fell out
serendipitously. First it was cute, then the lightbulb went on with
"Hey, that's a GREAT name for it!" I remember discussions as to whether
a follow-on language would be called "D" or "P" (since the roots of
C
are based on the old BCPL language).
C# is Microsoft's implementation of C++ with some extensions (mostly the
".NET" crud). It is more-or-less compatible to ANSI C++, but not
completely. Microsoft seems to have a horrible aversion to using
industry standards (ADS is a subset of LDAP, for example, but they'll
never say so).
Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They redefine darkness as the standard.
Now, looking at things such as Java...does anyone else remember a rather
noble but failed experiment called "UCSD P-System Pascal", championed by
Nicklaus Wirth in the '80s? Same idea, compile to some bizarre, byte-
code version of the source and have a target-specific interpreter to
act as a virtual machine to execute the byte-code. So Java certainly
isn't revolutionary, or even a very new idea.
Perhaps P-Systems' failure was due to not having gobs of memory or fast
processors to implement the virtual machine at that time and that Sun
Microsystems wasn't behind it as they were with Java.
Anyway, that's my contribution to the discussion.
(donning my flak jacket and flame-retardant suit for the inevitable
missiles that will be hurled in my direction)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens
Nice, you also seem to have nice experience.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
6:32 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 16:45 -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 23:42 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
>
> I suggested it for that reason, you can use c++ very easily as
> if it
> was C and this allows for a much easier transition in the
> future. C++
> can be anything from super easy to super hard. There are many
> texts
> that teach it on a basic level which is not much different
> than C.
>
> Yes, I understand your point Smith that from C++, you can go to any
> language of the world. But truly and frankly speaking to you, I would
> say that personally I have more attraction at Python simply becoz of
> its easiest structure but I would not deny that C++ would be the most
> vast language.
>
>
I am getting feisty about peoples strange statements about programming
languages. As someone who taught about programming languages for 30
years I can tell you it would be pretty hard to go from C++ to Lisp or
scheme without some serious coaching..
Right, Alan,
and then there are the odd languages like VBA (Microsoft's Visual Basic
for Applications), LOGO, Prolog, Eiffel, Small Talk, and APL.
Forth is sort of a different game as well, as are some of what once
were called the fourth generation extensible languages.
I used to try to keep up, but some time in the 1990's I gave up and just
concentrated on the ones I was using.
Regards,
Les H
6:53 p.m.
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 13:13 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 15:54 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> Bah. Real Programmers don't use FORTRAN, either!
>
> http://johnreece.com/wordpress/2006/07/10/real-programmers-dont-use-fortr...
And I still have my book for the SDK-85 to prove it... And my pocket
fold-out cheat-sheet for the CPU OP codes ;-)
Breadboarding our own CPU, RAM, I/O, etc.
Mind you, when it comes to compiling OP codes in your head, then
punching hex into a bouncy keypad, I really wouldn't want to have to
program anything more than the codes required to operate a washing
machine or microwave oven.
Before that, I had toyed with BASIC. But it was so useless (at least
the simpler implementations you found on personal computers, back then),
that you soon give up on trying to do anything good with it.
But think of all the good stuff you learned from that bouncy keypad, the
hex codes and the relative timing for all the breadboarding. An of
course the 70K byte hardsectored 5 1/4" floppies and the ageless load of
300 baud magnetic tape (I cheated and created my own resynchronizing
recording format that worked at 8Kbit on audio tape in 1977 or there
abouts.)
Regards,
Les H
8:29 p.m.
On 12/24/10, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 22 December 2010 17:07:46 David Liguori wrote:
> I'm surprised no one has suggested this so far as I've read so I will,
> but if one is really interested in learning about how the hardware works
> the most obvious place to start is "assembly" or "machine"
language.
Well, it actually was suggested before:
http://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/fedora-users/msg387760.html
There were also others that mentioned assembly afterwards, but I cannot
bother
now to dig out all those posts... :-)
But as I said in that previous post, you don't want to *start* learning
programming with assembly, but rather to *end* it with assembly.
It gives you a hardware-level perspective on what happens inside a computer,
and that is *not* a perspective any beginner should start with. If I
understood correctly what OP wants, assembly is the ultimate answer to his
wish to understand how programs actually run inside a computer. But in order
to properly grasp the idea, he needs quite some experience in higher-level
languages.
It's a long road of abstraction from "point&click" GUI to a sequence
of
assembly instructions that are actually being executed. As the OP has no
experience in higher levels of programming, it would be hard for him to have
a
reasonable overview of that whole road just by looking at assembly. I would
rather prefer the top-down approach than the bottom-up approach in this
case.
So the OP should start with, say, python, than advance to C, and then he may
take a look at assembly. The OO and functional languages can be dealt with
afterwards if he wishes to know about them.
> You don't actually write machine code but rather, "nenomics" that
> correspond to it.
It's spelled "mnemonics".
Best, :-)
Marko
With all due respect.
I disagree..
Start at the bottom and work up.
To learn assembly you need to understand the architecture of the chip.
This understanding of chip design and then execution codes will give
a great base to start with.
Best
Marvin
--
Marvin J. Kosmal
Disclaimer: This email is not intended to provide medical advice,
diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily
reflect those of Farmer Marvin or any of the hens.
11:10 p.m.
On Sat, 2010-12-25 at 18:29 -0800, Marvin Kosmal wrote:
With all due respect.
I disagree..
Start at the bottom and work up.
To learn assembly you need to understand the architecture of the chip.
This understanding of chip design and then execution codes will give
a great base to start with.
I'd say it depends on why you want to learn. If your interest is in
hardware and interfacing, then I'd suggest learning assembler first.
But if your interest is in data handling, then go the other way.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
1:25 p.m.
On Wednesday 22 December 2010 17:07:46 David Liguori wrote:
I'm surprised no one has suggested this so far as I've read
so I will,
but if one is really interested in learning about how the hardware works
the most obvious place to start is "assembly" or "machine" language.
Well, it actually was suggested before:
http://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/fedora-users/msg387760.html
There were also others that mentioned assembly afterwards, but I cannot bother
now to dig out all those posts... :-)
But as I said in that previous post, you don't want to *start* learning
programming with assembly, but rather to *end* it with assembly.
It gives you a hardware-level perspective on what happens inside a computer,
and that is *not* a perspective any beginner should start with. If I
understood correctly what OP wants, assembly is the ultimate answer to his
wish to understand how programs actually run inside a computer. But in order
to properly grasp the idea, he needs quite some experience in higher-level
languages.
It's a long road of abstraction from "point&click" GUI to a sequence of
assembly instructions that are actually being executed. As the OP has no
experience in higher levels of programming, it would be hard for him to have a
reasonable overview of that whole road just by looking at assembly. I would
rather prefer the top-down approach than the bottom-up approach in this case.
So the OP should start with, say, python, than advance to C, and then he may
take a look at assembly. The OO and functional languages can be dealt with
afterwards if he wishes to know about them.
You don't actually write machine code but rather,
"nenomics" that
correspond to it.
It's spelled "mnemonics".
Best, :-)
Marko
10:09 p.m.
Once upon a time, James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> said:
However, you are correct that punch cards should last for at least
100
years. A lot longer than magnetic tape, CD and DVD media.
Good tape types (such as DLT) are rated for at least 25 years of shelf
life. DLT is also nice in that the latest (and unfortunately last)
generation of SDLT drives can still read the first generation DLT tapes.
Cards are not that invulnerable either; humidity and temperature changes
will wreak havoc on the cheap card stock, and it will also get brittle
with age. They might still be readable in 100 years if you manually
separate each card and look at it, but that hardly counts (since you
can't feasibly look at individual cards for any useful volume of data).
Also, since cards are a very low-density storage medium, they are much
more vulnerable to losing chunks of data when a box is lost, dropped, or
gets wet.
If you want data/information to last, don't depend on any storage
medium. You have to plan on reading it in every X years (where X may
change as technology changes) and writing it out to current medium.
Also, don't forget to document the data format. The backup software we
use (Arkeia) writes out a basic C program that can extract files to the
header of each tape.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
9:39 p.m.
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:47:59 -0700
James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
On 12/23/10 5:25 AM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> Did you actually read the card?
> http://i55.tinypic.com/2whp10j.jpg
>
I hated those cards.
However, you are correct that punch cards should last for at least
100 years. A lot longer than magnetic tape, CD and DVD media.
James McKenzie
Back in the day, we used paper tape for our NC machinery. Lots of it.
-- cmg
8:47 p.m.
On 12/23/10 5:25 AM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
>> Did you actually read the card?
http://i55.tinypic.com/2whp10j.jpg
I hated those cards.
However, you are correct that punch cards should last for at least 100
years. A lot longer than magnetic tape, CD and DVD media.
James McKenzie
11:36 a.m.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, David Liguori wrote:
Not in terms of executable file size or speed of execution. I took
a
course in high performance scientific computing. An experiment we
performed was to write a program for the sum of three huge arrays,
repeated for larger and larger arrays, until it crashed, in C, C++,
Fortran and Java. The C won quite handily at least when the C++ program
was one that would compile equally well in C. The compiler was GCC in
both cases, I don't know about the Fortran or Java (which is not,
strictly speaking, a "compiled" language).
If you ran the same source compiled as C and as C++,
the results should have been pretty much the same.
There are some semantic differences,
but you won't find them by summing large arrays.
Apparently GNU's C++ front end isn't as good as its C front end.
--
Michael hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"Pessimist: The glass is half empty.
Optimist: The glass is half full.
Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
12:21 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 01:15 PM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Top down design, procedures, arrays, pointers, etc. Other object
oriented programming. Techniques, algorithms,..., etc. Those were the good old days :)
Now there is java, looks like C++ but there is no <iomanip.h>, <stdio.h>, ...,
There was no way to get user input, but then they put it in there :(, It supposed runs on
more platforms than the others(C++, C, pascal, basic, cobol, fortran, ..., etc)
Java has the equivalent buried in packages.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
12:15 p.m.
--- On Wed, 12/22/10, William Case <billlinux(a)rogers.com> wrote:
From: William Case <billlinux(a)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: About programing, a general question
To: "Community support for Fedora users" <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 8:56 AM
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 10:52 -0500,
Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 03:48 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jerry Feldman
<gaf(a)blu.org
> > <mailto:gaf@blu.org>>
wrote:
> >
> Yes and no. It is related to an understanding of what
a computer really
> does. While CPUs today are very complex, such as
out-of-order execution,
> the basic underlying premise is the same. If you
understand binary
> arithmetic and logical arithmetic, then you have an
understanding of
> what a CPU really does. You certainly don't need to
understand what an
> or gate or and gate is, but you need to understand
what happens when you
> add 2 positive integers and get a negative result,
int max 32768
int min -32768
Need to use long declarations, I remember this 14-15 years ago :)
It was fun! But wanted to finish school so I stopped taking comp. science classes. Now
it is Java, my nephew knows it, but does not want to teach me:(
Not an argument with what you say. I think most of it
is sound advice,
but I would like to, make one comment.
I found that when teaching myself 'C', 10 or 20 minutes
contemplating an
'and' or an 'or' gate gave me enough of an 'aha!' that I
could
understand what was going on. Of course, that was
proceeded by another
twenty minutes or so understanding the basic switching
capabilities of
transistors. Getting to understand basic computing cycles
as governed by
a crystal clock put everything into proportion timewise.
The same with a
template of a CPU showing things like the decoder,
registers, and the
ALU. I spent just enough time to get the idea of how
data and
instructions flowed. Knowing why there was a
difference between DRAM
(capacitors) memory and SRAM (flip-flops) memory answered a
lot of
questions of why things were done one way rather than the
other.
Top down design, procedures, arrays, pointers, etc. Other object oriented programming.
Techniques, algorithms,..., etc. Those were the good old days :) Now there is java,
looks like C++ but there is no <iomanip.h>, <stdio.h>, ..., There was no way
to get user input, but then they put it in there :(, It supposed runs on more platforms
than the others(C++, C, pascal, basic, cobol, fortran, ..., etc)
But it now has Oracle in charge of it :(, what will happen to it?
Regards,
Antonio
6:25 a.m.
Tim:
> Did you actually read the card?
http://i55.tinypic.com/2whp10j.jpg
Parshwa Murdia:
I first saw that and then tries, ultimately could not. Seems great
as
how wonderful the technology has become!
Punch cards, including the ones drawn on in lead pencil, are the
ultimate long term storage device. It requires no special machinery to
be read, it can be done by eye, and machinery can be built to read cards
when the original isn't available. That's not something so easily done
with old magnetic or laser optical media.
When the lead pencil dots are drawn above and below a character, it's to
mark the character between them. When they're drawn on a character,
they mark the character that they're drawn on. I think the JPEG has
enough resolution to be readable.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
5:23 a.m.
Tim:
> Not quite, here it is:
> http://i55.tinypic.com/2whp10j.jpg
Parshwa Murdia:
Great.
Did you actually read the card?
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
6:05 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Tim:
>> Not quite, here it is:
>> http://i55.tinypic.com/2whp10j.jpg
>
Parshwa Murdia:
> Great.
Did you actually read the card?
--
[tim@localhost ~]$
I first saw that and then tries, ultimately could not. Seems great as how
wonderful the technology has become!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:10 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
Once you have a firm grasp of the concepts of programming, you can move on
to things like OOP.
--
Jerry Feldman
That is the real thing! Whatever be the language, the computer process is
one to process that!!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
1:57 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs(a)clemson.edu> wrote:
Bah. Real Programmers don't use FORTRAN, either!
http://johnreece.com/wordpress/2006/07/10/real-programmers-dont-use-fortr...
(I was but a tyke in those days, but my dad worked for Royal around the
time this legend takes place. He used to have publicity fliers for
these machines lying around in his den that I poked through. I don't
think he knew Mel. My programming days began with PDP-8s and S/370s,
FORTRAN and PL/I. And IBM 024 keypunch program cards.)
--
Matthew Saltzman
This is also nice.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:24 a.m.
On 12/23/2010 08:58 AM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Joe Zeff<joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
There's also a copy of that story at FOLDOC. The first computer I ever
> programmed was an IBM 1620, Mod 2, with 20,000 individually addressable
> BCD digits, already obsolete in the late '60s when I first encountered
> it. We started out with machine language, eventually graduating to
> Assembler and FORTRAN II. I have fond memories of using an IBM 024 and
> found the concept of "cardimages" intuitive. Now, of course, people
> find it hard to wrap their minds around the idea even after you explain
> it. BTW, both Dan and Jerry also cut their teeth on the 1620.
>
One thing I have seen is that everyone has at some stage of his life used or
learned Fortran in any way, that I saw for sure.
I am inclined to consider this to
be a matter of age/generation.
Probably everybody, who was involved into programming or attended
programming courses, or who studied some technical science at a
university/school >20 years ago, hardly could circumvent Fortran.
Ralf
2:06 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
And I still have my book for the SDK-85 to prove it... And my pocket
fold-out cheat-sheet for the CPU OP codes ;-)
Breadboarding our own CPU, RAM, I/O, etc.
Mind you, when it comes to compiling OP codes in your head, then
punching hex into a bouncy keypad, I really wouldn't want to have to
program anything more than the codes required to operate a washing
machine or microwave oven.
Before that, I had toyed with BASIC. But it was so useless (at least
the simpler implementations you found on personal computers, back then),
that you soon give up on trying to do anything good with it.
Tim runs through the room waving a punch card!
Cool.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:08 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:46 AM, James McKenzie
<jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>wrote:
Again, more books that I have read. I had or have their Javascript for
Programmers book. Not needed for a good course on programming.
However, their C++ book is great.
Their C book is a mixed bag in the current edition, but I had a prior
edition and it was very good. It is available from Amazon, but is very
expensive (USD 46).
James McKenzie
Yes, but I got the link to that book of K&R.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:04 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Aaron Konstam <akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net>wrote:
As someone who taught about programming languages for 30 years I can tell
you it would be pretty hard to go from C++ to Lisp or
scheme without some serious coaching.
You might be correct but why I said because of C++ having zillion of options
and its learning too takes much time as when you compare with Python or
other.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
1:58 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
There's also a copy of that story at FOLDOC. The first computer I ever
programmed was an IBM 1620, Mod 2, with 20,000 individually
addressable
BCD digits, already obsolete in the late '60s when I first encountered
it. We started out with machine language, eventually graduating to
Assembler and FORTRAN II. I have fond memories of using an IBM 024 and
found the concept of "cardimages" intuitive. Now, of course, people
find it hard to wrap their minds around the idea even after you explain
it. BTW, both Dan and Jerry also cut their teeth on the 1620.
One thing I have seen is that everyone has at some stage of his life used or
learned Fortran in any way, that I saw for sure.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
10:34 p.m.
Tim:
> Tim runs through the room waving a punch card!
Marvin Kosmal:
Punch Card!!!!
Hollerith code
hehe
Hot quite, here it is:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2whp10j.jpg
9:16 p.m.
On 12/22/10 10:07 AM, David Liguori wrote:
Then, for an amusing read which may or may not tell you anything
about
how a computer works, try Douglas Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher, Bach: an
Eternal Golden Braid".
I've read this book, on both sides (yes, this is a
book that starts on
one side and the other (you have to flip the book over and then start
reading.) Interesting indeed.
If I misunderstood and you just want to learn the most useful
language,
it would probably be C. Later you could learn C++ and "object-oriented"
concepts. C gives you plenty of opportunity to interact at the
hardware-level, with the ability in principle to write significant
pieces of software like word processors or operating systems. The books
by Deitel and Deitel probably have everything you need to know.
Again, more books that I have read. I had or have their Javascript for
Programmers book. Not needed for a good course on programming.
However, their C++ book is great.
Their C book is a mixed bag in the current edition, but I had a prior
edition and it was very good. It is available from Amazon, but is very
expensive (USD 46).
James McKenzie
9:08 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 11:56 -0500, William Case wrote:
I found that when teaching myself 'C', 10 or 20 minutes
contemplating
an 'and' or an 'or' gate gave me enough of an 'aha!' that I
could
understand what was going on. Of course, that was proceeded by
another twenty minutes or so understanding the basic switching
capabilities of transistors. Getting to understand basic computing
cycles as governed by a crystal clock put everything into proportion
timewise. The same with a template of a CPU showing things like the
decoder, registers, and the ALU. I spent just enough time to get the
idea of how data and instructions flowed. Knowing why there was a
difference between DRAM (capacitors) memory and SRAM (flip-flops)
memory answered a lot of questions of why things were done one way
rather than the other.
That was stuff we needed to know when programming really slow
microcomputer systems, as timing was dependent on how long the program
took to execute each step, rather than the program waiting for some time
clock to say now's the time to start it. You also needed to know that
when you were building the hardware to go along with it, too.
I wonder if kids will build their own MP3 players, the way we built a
crystal radio set? ;-)
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
8:43 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 15:54 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
Bah. Real Programmers don't use FORTRAN, either!
http://johnreece.com/wordpress/2006/07/10/real-programmers-dont-use-fortr...
And I still have my book for the SDK-85 to prove it... And my pocket
fold-out cheat-sheet for the CPU OP codes ;-)
Breadboarding our own CPU, RAM, I/O, etc.
Mind you, when it comes to compiling OP codes in your head, then
punching hex into a bouncy keypad, I really wouldn't want to have to
program anything more than the codes required to operate a washing
machine or microwave oven.
Before that, I had toyed with BASIC. But it was so useless (at least
the simpler implementations you found on personal computers, back then),
that you soon give up on trying to do anything good with it.
Tim runs through the room waving a punch card!
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
8:50 p.m.
On 12/22/10, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 15:54 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> Bah. Real Programmers don't use FORTRAN, either!
>
> http://johnreece.com/wordpress/2006/07/10/real-programmers-dont-use-fortr...
And I still have my book for the SDK-85 to prove it... And my pocket
fold-out cheat-sheet for the CPU OP codes ;-)
Breadboarding our own CPU, RAM, I/O, etc.
Mind you, when it comes to compiling OP codes in your head, then
punching hex into a bouncy keypad, I really wouldn't want to have to
program anything more than the codes required to operate a washing
machine or microwave oven.
Before that, I had toyed with BASIC. But it was so useless (at least
the simpler implementations you found on personal computers, back then),
that you soon give up on trying to do anything good with it.
Tim runs through the room waving a punch card!
Punch Card!!!!
Hollerith code
hehe
Marvin
2:25 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 12:08 PM, Matt Smith wrote:
I have to disagree, if utilized properly managing memory, optimizing
the cache, etc is very possible with c++ and can absolutely work well
in a high performance environment
<set mode="oldphart">
If you can't do what's needed in FORTRAN, you can't do it. Back in the
early '80s, I was working with Dan Alderson at JPL. We were doing work
with structures and pointer arithmetic, in FORTRAN77 because it was a
subroutine and function package to be used in other FORTRAN programs so
we couldn't use Dan's favorite language, PL/1. Those of you who think
you can't do things like that in FORTRAN would do well to ponder the
fact that Jerry Pournelle has called Dan "the sane genius."
</mode>
4:52 p.m.
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 00:10 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net>
wrote:
Since C++ is a preprocessor to C, how does it run circles
around C?
Just asking.
Regards,
Les H
Absolutely no idea dude!
There are C++ implementations where C++ is processed to C
but the
language it self can have a compiler that does not use C.
--
=======================================================================
Don't everyone thank me at once! -- Han Solo
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
4:45 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 23:42 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
I suggested it for that reason, you can use c++ very easily as
if it
was C and this allows for a much easier transition in the
future. C++
can be anything from super easy to super hard. There are many
texts
that teach it on a basic level which is not much different
than C.
Yes, I understand your point Smith that from C++, you can go to any
language of the world. But truly and frankly speaking to you, I would
say that personally I have more attraction at Python simply becoz of
its easiest structure but I would not deny that C++ would be the most
vast language.
I am getting feisty about peoples strange statements about programming
languages. As someone who taught about programming languages for 30
years I can tell you it would be pretty hard to go from C++ to Lisp or
scheme without some serious coaching..
--
=======================================================================
Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
4:41 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 10:39 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
Basically, my company's product is written almost entirely in C++
and
after having been around C++ for a while, IMHO, it happens to be
reasonably well written and structured. In contrast I have been
involved
with some C++ that was essentially C with a few C++ isms. I like C++,
but not as a person's first computer language.
Most people who think they understand C++ will be humbled by listening
to its developer explain how it can be used.
--
=======================================================================
Don't vote -- it only encourages them!
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
3:09 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 12:54 PM, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
http://johnreece.com/wordpress/2006/07/10/real-programmers-dont-use-fortr...
(I was but a tyke in those days, but my dad worked for Royal around the
time this legend takes place. He used to have publicity fliers for
these machines lying around in his den that I poked through. I don't
think he knew Mel. My programming days began with PDP-8s and S/370s,
FORTRAN and PL/I. And IBM 024 keypunch program cards.)
There's also a copy of that story at FOLDOC. The first computer I ever
programmed was an IBM 1620, Mod 2, with 20,000 individually addressable
BCD digits, already obsolete in the late '60s when I first encountered
it. We started out with machine language, eventually graduating to
Assembler and FORTRAN II. I have fond memories of using an IBM 024 and
found the concept of "cardimages" intuitive. Now, of course, people
find it hard to wrap their minds around the idea even after you explain
it. BTW, both Dan and Jerry also cut their teeth on the 1620.
2:54 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 12:25 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/22/2010 12:08 PM, Matt Smith wrote:
> I have to disagree, if utilized properly managing memory, optimizing
> the cache, etc is very possible with c++ and can absolutely work well
> in a high performance environment
<set mode="oldphart">
If you can't do what's needed in FORTRAN, you can't do it. Back in the
early '80s, I was working with Dan Alderson at JPL. We were doing work
with structures and pointer arithmetic, in FORTRAN77 because it was a
subroutine and function package to be used in other FORTRAN programs so
we couldn't use Dan's favorite language, PL/1. Those of you who think
you can't do things like that in FORTRAN would do well to ponder the
fact that Jerry Pournelle has called Dan "the sane genius."
</mode>
Bah. Real Programmers don't use FORTRAN, either!
http://johnreece.com/wordpress/2006/07/10/real-programmers-dont-use-fortr...
(I was but a tyke in those days, but my dad worked for Royal around the
time this legend takes place. He used to have publicity fliers for
these machines lying around in his den that I poked through. I don't
think he knew Mel. My programming days began with PDP-8s and S/370s,
FORTRAN and PL/I. And IBM 024 keypunch program cards.)
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
2:28 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Matt Smith <smithm2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have to disagree, if utilized properly managing memory, optimizing
the cache, etc is very possible with c++ and can absolutely work
well
in a high performance environment
You must have worked with C++ in a high performance environment.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:31 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
If you can't do what's needed in FORTRAN, you can't do it. Back in the
early '80s, I was working with Dan Alderson at JPL. We were
doing work
with structures and pointer arithmetic, in FORTRAN77 because it was a
subroutine and function package to be used in other FORTRAN programs so
we couldn't use Dan's favorite language, PL/1. Those of you who think
you can't do things like that in FORTRAN would do well to ponder the
fact that Jerry Pournelle has called Dan "the sane genius."
:)
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:27 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Jussi Lehtola <
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Traditionally high performance computing programs have been written in
Fortran, then some C, but nowadays many of the new codes are C++,
simply because OOP makes it a *lot* faster to develop a bug-free code..
A lot of people still use Fortran (>= 90) for new codes as well,
though..
--
Jussi Lehtola
Oh I see.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:26 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
Basically, C++ is not going to work well in a high performance computing
environment. Templates and inheritance have their place. In essence
C++
and other OOP models should be designed. While that goes for all code, a
poorly designed C++ system could certainly have issues. But, I don't
want to get into the benefits of any one language. I've had to work with
classes that were not properly designed to where I had to write a base
class and take the existing class and inherit from the new base so that
the existing code would work.
--
Jerry Feldman
Great.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:25 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
I also must be showing my age ;-:) (showing the toothless, dentureless
smile)
You must be highly experienced!
The largest code I ever personally developed was just over 40,000
lines.
</offthread>
Regards,
Les H
And you use the word 'just' here, wow!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:19 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 03:07 AM, les wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 14:05 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On 12/22/2010 01:52 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Jerry Feldman<gaf(a)blu.org
>> <mailto:gaf@blu.org>> wrote:
>>
>> A properly optimized simple C++ program should be able to perform
>> as well
>> as C.
>>
>> --
>> Jerry Feldman
>>
>>
>>
>> Simply say, C++ is the daughter of C which has become more advanced.
> I a way. C++ is essentially an Object Oriented version of C. While there
> are common members of the 2 standards committees, they are currently 2
> different languages. In my Northeastern C course, one of the examples I
> used was a fully C standard compliant program, but it would not compile
> in a C++ compiler. Some of the students were using Microsoft Visual C++,
> and did not tell the compiler it was a C program. Basically they are
> close. Additionally in C++ I am going to use the new and delete
> operators to allocate and deallocate memory where in C, I'll use
> malloc(3) and free(3) for the same thing. But, never malloc(3) and
> free(3) in C++. I also don't like to get into discussions about what is
> the best language. The choice of language to use for a project is based
> on many factors. If the project is learning, go to a language that is
> relatively easy to learn that uses the basic structures. I rarely write
> assembler language directly, but many times I would simulate what I
> wanted to do in C, then generate the assembly from there, and hand
> optimize.
>
VERY well said. Thank you Jerry!
I was on the ANSI C committee for a brief time when C was being spec'd
out back in the late '70s and early '80s. Our company was an early
adopter of Whitesmiths' C on Vaxen and PDP-11s. PJ Plaugher of
Whitesmiths was the first secretary of the committee.
<rumination style="big_grin">
PJ had an interesting take on things. I remember that Whitesmiths
version of the now-standard "atexit()" function was called
"onexit()".
When reading the man page, the prototypes for the arguments were really
mucked up. In the "Bugs" section of the manpage, he said, "...the type
definitions defy description and are still wrong." Also, forgetting
the terminating null in the source string used with their "cpystr()"
(now "strcpy()") function was deemed "mildly perilous."
</rumination>
Technically C++ grew out of AT&T Bell Labs' Cfront, which was an OOP
pre-processor for C. The combination of C and Cfront was often referred
to as "C with classes".
When C++ was first being codified formally it was called "Incremental
C". Since "++" is the C increment operator, the name sort of fell out
serendipitously. First it was cute, then the lightbulb went on with
"Hey, that's a GREAT name for it!" I remember discussions as to whether
a follow-on language would be called "D" or "P" (since the roots of C
are based on the old BCPL language).
C# is Microsoft's implementation of C++ with some extensions (mostly the
".NET" crud). It is more-or-less compatible to ANSI C++, but not
completely. Microsoft seems to have a horrible aversion to using
industry standards (ADS is a subset of LDAP, for example, but they'll
never say so).
Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They redefine darkness as the standard.
Now, looking at things such as Java...does anyone else remember a rather
noble but failed experiment called "UCSD P-System Pascal", championed by
Nicklaus Wirth in the '80s? Same idea, compile to some bizarre, byte-
code version of the source and have a target-specific interpreter to
act as a virtual machine to execute the byte-code. So Java certainly
isn't revolutionary, or even a very new idea.
Perhaps P-Systems' failure was due to not having gobs of memory or fast
processors to implement the virtual machine at that time and that Sun
Microsystems wasn't behind it as they were with Java.
Anyway, that's my contribution to the discussion.
(donning my flak jacket and flame-retardant suit for the inevitable
missiles that will be hurled in my direction)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, C2 Hosting ricks(a)nerd.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- A squeegee, by any other name, wouldn't sound as funny. -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2:08 p.m.
I have to disagree, if utilized properly managing memory, optimizing
the cache, etc is very possible with c++ and can absolutely work well
in a high performance environment
On 12/22/10, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
On 12/22/2010 06:06 AM, les wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 13:49 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
>> On 12/22/2010 01:40 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net
>>> <mailto:hlhowell@pacbell.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since C++ is a preprocessor to C, how does it run circles around C?
>>> Just asking.
>>>
>>>
>> C++ is NOT a preprocessor to C. Some of the original C++ systems
>> certainly were, but nearly all C++ compilers are true compilers. A
>> properly optimized simple C++ program should be able to perform as well
>> as C. But, when you start taking into account template classes, and a
>> bunch of other things, then performance takes a back seat. Our code has
>> over 1,000,000 lines of code, and I would hate to have to maintain it as
>> a C system. (I'm glad I don't have to maintain it in the first place).
>>
> <off thread>
> I guess I should have stated that as "could be a preprocessor".
>
> I also must be showing my age ;-:) (showing the toothless, dentureless
> smile)
>
> Seriously, though the points you make about template classes, along with
> over use of inheritance, and bulky code in some classes makes C++ really
> a drag on high speed computing I think.
>
> I use C a lot, probably too much, but I don't do much in the way of
> huge programs. Most are 12,000 lines or less and I only get about 3
> months to deliver them at most. Also the systems and people I deliver
> to, don't have extensive OOP experience and since they often maintain,
> or extend/maintain/modify the code, C++ would be a hardship on some of
> that, where as C's basic structure is a bit more challenging, but gives
> more direct control for their work. The largest code I ever personally
> developed was just over 40,000 lines.
> </offthread>
>
>
>
>
Basically, C++ is not going to work well in a high performance computing
environment. Templates and inheritance have their place. In essence C++
and other OOP models should be designed. While that goes for all code, a
poorly designed C++ system could certainly have issues. But, I don't
want to get into the benefits of any one language. I've had to work with
classes that were not properly designed to where I had to write a base
class and take the existing class and inherit from the new base so that
the existing code would work.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
--
Sent from my mobile device
1:49 p.m.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:42:47 -0500
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
Basically, C++ is not going to work well in a high performance
computing environment. Templates and inheritance have their place. In
essence C++ and other OOP models should be designed. While that goes
for all code, a poorly designed C++ system could certainly have
issues. But, I don't want to get into the benefits of any one
language. I've had to work with classes that were not properly
designed to where I had to write a base class and take the existing
class and inherit from the new base so that the existing code would
work.
That depends. Normally in high performance computing one spends 99% of
the time in 1% of the code. And the performance intensive bits can
often be optimized by hand...
Traditionally high performance computing programs have been written in
Fortran, then some C, but nowadays many of the new codes are C++,
simply because OOP makes it a *lot* faster to develop a bug-free code..
A lot of people still use Fortran (>= 90) for new codes as well,
though..
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
1:42 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 06:06 AM, les wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 13:49 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On 12/22/2010 01:40 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net
>> <mailto:hlhowell@pacbell.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Since C++ is a preprocessor to C, how does it run circles around C?
>> Just asking.
>>
>>
> C++ is NOT a preprocessor to C. Some of the original C++ systems
> certainly were, but nearly all C++ compilers are true compilers. A
> properly optimized simple C++ program should be able to perform as well
> as C. But, when you start taking into account template classes, and a
> bunch of other things, then performance takes a back seat. Our code has
> over 1,000,000 lines of code, and I would hate to have to maintain it as
> a C system. (I'm glad I don't have to maintain it in the first place).
>
<off thread>
I guess I should have stated that as "could be a preprocessor".
I also must be showing my age ;-:) (showing the toothless, dentureless
smile)
Seriously, though the points you make about template classes, along with
over use of inheritance, and bulky code in some classes makes C++ really
a drag on high speed computing I think.
I use C a lot, probably too much, but I don't do much in the way of
huge programs. Most are 12,000 lines or less and I only get about 3
months to deliver them at most. Also the systems and people I deliver
to, don't have extensive OOP experience and since they often maintain,
or extend/maintain/modify the code, C++ would be a hardship on some of
that, where as C's basic structure is a bit more challenging, but gives
more direct control for their work. The largest code I ever personally
developed was just over 40,000 lines.
</offthread>
Basically, C++ is not going to work well in a high performance computing
environment. Templates and inheritance have their place. In essence C++
and other OOP models should be designed. While that goes for all code, a
poorly designed C++ system could certainly have issues. But, I don't
want to get into the benefits of any one language. I've had to work with
classes that were not properly designed to where I had to write a base
class and take the existing class and inherit from the new base so that
the existing code would work.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
1:05 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 01:52 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org
<mailto:gaf@blu.org>> wrote:
A properly optimized simple C++ program should be able to perform
as well
as C.
--
Jerry Feldman
Simply say, C++ is the daughter of C which has become more advanced.
I a way. C++
is essentially an Object Oriented version of C. While there
are common members of the 2 standards committees, they are currently 2
different languages. In my Northeastern C course, one of the examples I
used was a fully C standard compliant program, but it would not compile
in a C++ compiler. Some of the students were using Microsoft Visual C++,
and did not tell the compiler it was a C program. Basically they are
close. Additionally in C++ I am going to use the new and delete
operators to allocate and deallocate memory where in C, I'll use
malloc(3) and free(3) for the same thing. But, never malloc(3) and
free(3) in C++. I also don't like to get into discussions about what is
the best language. The choice of language to use for a project is based
on many factors. If the project is learning, go to a language that is
relatively easy to learn that uses the basic structures. I rarely write
assembler language directly, but many times I would simulate what I
wanted to do in C, then generate the assembly from there, and hand
optimize.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
12:49 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 01:40 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net
<mailto:hlhowell@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Since C++ is a preprocessor to C, how does it run circles around C?
Just asking.
C++ is NOT a preprocessor to C. Some of the original C++ systems
certainly were, but nearly all C++ compilers are true compilers. A
properly optimized simple C++ program should be able to perform as well
as C. But, when you start taking into account template classes, and a
bunch of other things, then performance takes a back seat. Our code has
over 1,000,000 lines of code, and I would hate to have to maintain it as
a C system. (I'm glad I don't have to maintain it in the first place).
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
12:46 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
Since I cowrote the Alpha assembler for Windows NT and Tru64 Unix. Most
of the RISC chips had a large number of general purpose registers.
The
trick is to use them effectively. You can easily use one as a base
register and one as an index register. Octal and Hex are just shorthand
notations for expressing binary. In the early days of computing things
were not standardized. For instance, the DEC PGP-8 was a 12-bit machine.
Octal was much more convenient for PDP-8s. Systems based on the byte
generally use hex. I would expect that some of the new processors have
some form of virtualization manager. Can you see Intel chips with a
VMWare supervisor and AMD chips with a Microsoft Hyper V.
Guess, it is inside the 'Assembly language' talk!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:33 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
Top down design, procedures, arrays, pointers, etc. Other object
oriented
programming. Techniques, algorithms,..., etc. Those were the good old days
:) Now there is java, looks like C++ but there is no <iomanip.h>,
<stdio.h>, ..., There was no way to get user input, but then they put it in
there :(, It supposed runs on more platforms than the others(C++, C, pascal,
basic, cobol, fortran, ..., etc)
>
Java has the equivalent buried in packages.
--
Jerry Feldman
No idea!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:32 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
There is considerable more overhead in compiling a C++ program. I would
probably guess that FORTRAN would win. Another issue is
optimization.
Optimization can make major differences. On some RISC platforms we not
only used compiler optimization, but also took the output from the
compiler and based upon some of the hardware latency specifications,
would reorder the resultant code. Today, many CPUs do this automatically.
In any case when writing any code, state your goals ahead of time. I
tend to like to write my code with an emphasis on readability and
correctness. Once the code is working, I can run a performance analysis
to see the places in the code things are slowing down.
--
Jerry Feldman
'Inside a program talk'!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:30 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Antonio Olivares
<olivares14031(a)yahoo.com>wrote:
int max 32768
int min -32768
Need to use long declarations, I remember this 14-15 years ago :)
It was fun! But wanted to finish school so I stopped taking comp. science
classes. Now it is Java, my nephew knows it, but does not want to teach
me:(
Top down design, procedures, arrays, pointers, etc. Other object oriented
programming. Techniques, algorithms,..., etc. Those were the good old days
:) Now there is java, looks like C++ but there is no <iomanip.h>,
<stdio.h>, ..., There was no way to get user input, but then they put it in
there :(, It supposed runs on more platforms than the others(C++, C, pascal,
basic, cobol, fortran, ..., etc)
But it now has Oracle in charge of it :(, what will happen to it?
Regards,
Antonio
Too much languages!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:31 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 01:22 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM, David Liguori
<liguorid(a)albany.edu
<mailto:liguorid@albany.edu>> wrote:
But higher-level languages like C and Fortran ultimately produce a
stream of ones and
zeros that correspond to these instructions, source and target
registers, and data.
Any language (whatever be it is), I think finally is processed in the
same way as is C or Fortran, though that is a different thing if some
language is already written in C!
Then, for an amusing read which may or may not tell you anything about
how a computer works, try Douglas Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher,
Bach: an
Eternal Golden Braid".
It is the name of the book?
The books by Deitel and Deitel probably have everything you need
to know.
But what is the name of the book? Is it something like 'Programing in
C' (e.g., one excellent book by K&R)!
I once had Harvey Deitel as a
professor. I love their C++ book, "C++ How
to Program", but it is a large, complex book. The equivalent C language
book is "C How to Program". At Northeastern we used the Deitel book to
teach C++ but we used
"C Programming: A Modern Approach" by King as it was a simpler book.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
12:27 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Colin Paul Adams <colin(a)colina.demon.co.uk
wrote:
But not design-by-contract. So Eiffel should be the default.
--
Colin Adams
The person who is engaged with a programing language for years or who has
spent years in some particular or one programing language cannot say other
to go for anything other from that, that I understand because he is familiar
with the usage of that particular language he is asserting. However, Colin,
please don't take it on you but I observed the fact in general!
Even one suggested me to go for Forth (http://forth.org/), I heard for the
first time in my life. I know there may be various reasons for that.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:22 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM, David Liguori <liguorid(a)albany.edu> wrote:
But higher-level languages like C and Fortran ultimately produce a stream of
ones and
zeros that correspond to these instructions, source and target
registers, and data.
Any language (whatever be it is), I think finally is processed in the same
way as is C or Fortran, though that is a different thing if some language is
already written in C!
Then, for an amusing read which may or may not tell you anything
about
how a computer works, try Douglas Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher, Bach: an
Eternal Golden Braid".
It is the name of the book?
The books by Deitel and Deitel probably have everything you need to
know.
But what is the name of the book? Is it something like 'Programing in C'
(e.g., one excellent book by K&R)!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:18 p.m.
On 12/22/2010 12:20 PM, David Liguori wrote:
Not in terms of executable file size or speed of execution. I took a
course in high performance scientific computing. An experiment we
performed was to write a program for the sum of three huge arrays,
repeated for larger and larger arrays, until it crashed, in C, C++,
Fortran and Java. The C won quite handily at least when the C++ program
was one that would compile equally well in C. The compiler was GCC in
both cases, I don't know about the Fortran or Java (which is not,
strictly speaking, a "compiled" language).
There is considerable more overhead in compiling a C++ program. I would
probably guess that FORTRAN would win. Another issue is optimization.
Optimization can make major differences. On some RISC platforms we not
only used compiler optimization, but also took the output from the
compiler and based upon some of the hardware latency specifications,
would reorder the resultant code. Today, many CPUs do this automatically.
In any case when writing any code, state your goals ahead of time. I
tend to like to write my code with an emphasis on readability and
correctness. Once the code is working, I can run a performance analysis
to see the places in the code things are slowing down.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
12:18 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Michael Hennebry <
hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
The *default* should be python even for object-oriented stuff.
Python allows polymorphism and operator overloading.
There are important differences:
In python, one cannot declare the type of a variable or member:
Type is acquired by assignment.
def and class statements assign functions and classes to variables.
They do not preclude reassignment.
This could prevent an error message when
one would prefer that to the result.
Flexibility can be slow.
C++ and java with their fixed types will usually be faster.
The availablilty of useful additives is another
reason for not necessarily using the default.
--
Michael
You can say this because you might be knowing both the languages.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:12 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Matt Smith <smithm2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I suggested it for that reason, you can use c++ very easily as if it
was C and this allows for a much easier transition in the future.
C++
can be anything from super easy to super hard. There are many texts
that teach it on a basic level which is not much different than C.
Yes, I understand your point Smith that from C++, you can go to any language
of the world. But truly and frankly speaking to you, I would say that
personally I have more attraction at Python simply becoz of its easiest
structure but I would not deny that C++ would be the most vast language.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
11:20 a.m.
On 12/21/2010 8:18 PM, Matt Smith wrote:
Can we please get c++ involved in the discussion, it runs circles
around C on all levels..
Not in terms of executable file size or speed of execution. I took a
course in high performance scientific computing. An experiment we
performed was to write a program for the sum of three huge arrays,
repeated for larger and larger arrays, until it crashed, in C, C++,
Fortran and Java. The C won quite handily at least when the C++ program
was one that would compile equally well in C. The compiler was GCC in
both cases, I don't know about the Fortran or Java (which is not,
strictly speaking, a "compiled" language).
11:02 a.m.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, n2xssvv.g02gfr12930 wrote:
I agree with it being easier to migrate from C++, rather than to
C++.
Unfortunately C++ probably has a longer learning curve than most other
programming languages. But the choice of programming language should
really be decided by the type of applications you intend to create, and
the target platforms. Especially if you're starting from scratch and
wish to create any application in a reasonable time period.
The *default* should be python even for object-oriented stuff.
Python allows polymorphism and operator overloading.
There are important differences:
In python, one cannot declare the type of a variable or member:
Type is acquired by assignment.
def and class statements assign functions and classes to variables.
They do not preclude reassignment.
This could prevent an error message when
one would prefer that to the result.
Flexibility can be slow.
C++ and java with their fixed types will usually be faster.
The availablilty of useful additives is another
reason for not necessarily using the default.
--
Michael hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"Pessimist: The glass is half empty.
Optimist: The glass is half full.
Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
10:56 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 10:52 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On 12/21/2010 03:48 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org
> <mailto:gaf@blu.org>> wrote:
>
Yes and no. It is related to an understanding of what a computer really
does. While CPUs today are very complex, such as out-of-order execution,
the basic underlying premise is the same. If you understand binary
arithmetic and logical arithmetic, then you have an understanding of
what a CPU really does. You certainly don't need to understand what an
or gate or and gate is, but you need to understand what happens when you
add 2 positive integers and get a negative result,
Not an argument with what you say. I think most of it is sound advice,
but I would like to, make one comment.
I found that when teaching myself 'C', 10 or 20 minutes contemplating an
'and' or an 'or' gate gave me enough of an 'aha!' that I could
understand what was going on. Of course, that was proceeded by another
twenty minutes or so understanding the basic switching capabilities of
transistors. Getting to understand basic computing cycles as governed by
a crystal clock put everything into proportion timewise. The same with a
template of a CPU showing things like the decoder, registers, and the
ALU. I spent just enough time to get the idea of how data and
instructions flowed. Knowing why there was a difference between DRAM
(capacitors) memory and SRAM (flip-flops) memory answered a lot of
questions of why things were done one way rather than the other.
I didn't want to become an engineer, or build a computer from scratch in
my garage, but I did want to get passed the frustrating notion of
programming something the way I was told to just because 'I said so'.
There is always a reason why things are done the way they are.
--
Regards Bill
Fedora 14, Gnome 2.32
Evo.2.32, Emacs 23.2.1
9:45 a.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
Basically, my company's product is written almost entirely in C++ and
after having been around C++ for a while, IMHO, it happens to be
reasonably well written and structured. In contrast I have been involved
with some C++ that was essentially C with a few C++ isms. I like C++,
but not as a person's first computer language.
--
Jerry Feldman
Yes, but Python could be that first language.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
9:39 a.m.
On 12/21/2010 08:18 PM, Matt Smith wrote:
Can we please get c++ involved in the discussion, it runs circles
around C on all levels..
Basically, my company's product is written almost
entirely in C++ and
after having been around C++ for a while, IMHO, it happens to be
reasonably well written and structured. In contrast I have been involved
with some C++ that was essentially C with a few C++ isms. I like C++,
but not as a person's first computer language.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
4:38 a.m.
On 12/18/2010 06:41 AM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Matt Smith <smithm2(a)gmail.com
<mailto:smithm2@gmail.com>> wrote:
Go with C++, easiest jump to every language. The reverse is not true
for any other language.
Ok, I see, it is having a zillion of options in its library, as someone
told me.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
I agree with it being easier to migrate from C++, rather than to C++.
Unfortunately C++ probably has a longer learning curve than most other
programming languages. But the choice of programming language should
really be decided by the type of applications you intend to create, and
the target platforms. Especially if you're starting from scratch and
wish to create any application in a reasonable time period.
Regards
cpp4ever
7:18 p.m.
Can we please get c++ involved in the discussion, it runs circles
around C on all levels..
On 12/21/10, James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
On 12/21/10 1:46 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM, William Case <billlinux(a)rogers.com
> <mailto:billlinux@rogers.com>> wrote:
>
> I am not a programmer, but I wanted the answer you seem to want. How
> does the damn thing work? More explicitly:
>
> How does human understandable information get converted by a machine
> into electrical data; then store it; may or may not, transform,
> compare,
> and/or relocate the data; and then re-present the data as information
> meaningful to humans?
>
> I found the answer in "The C Programming Language" by Brian W.
> Kernighan
> and Dennis M. Ritchie. This book is such a basic that it is often
> referred to just as K&R. If you try to simply use this book as a
> tutorial for the C language it is too difficult. Almost every
> sentence
> contains a new concept. But K&R and 'C' are closest to the metal.
> It's
> description and particularly its appendices are used by programmers
> mainly as a reference. It really is a text on how to best write
> code so
> that the compiler can use your 'C' code by translating it into machine
> language. It is also, therefore, basic instructions for compiler
> writers
> on how they have writer their compilers.
>
>
>
> Sure, how to get this book? Is it available online somewhere?
Not legally, anywhere. However, the Second Edition is available from
Amazon and other book retailers. It is not very expensive. It would
cost me more to mail you the extra copy I have to you than it would be
to buy it (even in the United States.)
James McKenzie
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
--
Sent from my mobile device
7 p.m.
On 12/21/10 1:46 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM, William Case
<billlinux(a)rogers.com
<mailto:billlinux@rogers.com>> wrote:
I am not a programmer, but I wanted the answer you seem to want. How
does the damn thing work? More explicitly:
How does human understandable information get converted by a machine
into electrical data; then store it; may or may not, transform,
compare,
and/or relocate the data; and then re-present the data as information
meaningful to humans?
I found the answer in "The C Programming Language" by Brian W.
Kernighan
and Dennis M. Ritchie. This book is such a basic that it is often
referred to just as K&R. If you try to simply use this book as a
tutorial for the C language it is too difficult. Almost every
sentence
contains a new concept. But K&R and 'C' are closest to the metal.
It's
description and particularly its appendices are used by programmers
mainly as a reference. It really is a text on how to best write
code so
that the compiler can use your 'C' code by translating it into machine
language. It is also, therefore, basic instructions for compiler
writers
on how they have writer their compilers.
Sure, how to get this book? Is it available online somewhere?
Not legally,
anywhere. However, the Second Edition is available from
Amazon and other book retailers. It is not very expensive. It would
cost me more to mail you the extra copy I have to you than it would be
to buy it (even in the United States.)
James McKenzie
3:43 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:42 AM, William Case <billlinux(a)rogers.com> wrote:
I don't think you can get it legitimately online -- I have the hard
cover text. It maybe available online now. Google "The C
Programming
Language" by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie. It is sold
everywhere that sells computer books. It is not expensive -- not like
other computer text books.
The 'C' language does not deal directly with the Internet. It is more
basic. Much of the higher level code used for the internet is or was
originally written in 'C' in order to get the computer to accept and
transmit data, to build internet packets and to adhere to traffic
protocols.
Actually, computers don't use '1' and '0's. The '1' and
'0's are just
textual representations of High Voltage and Low Voltage which is what
the machine really uses. It is a handy representation because binary
math (two digit athematic) gives the same results as the combining of
deferent sets of high voltages and low voltages.
--
Regards Bill
Yes, sure Bill, I guess that you too are a great computer guy who might be
knowing almost all the facts related with the computer, if I am not wrong.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:39 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Michael Hennebry <
hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
Then the sequence is python, C, assembly.
Python will let you actually write code.
It has a clean syntax that encourages code legibility.
C is much closer to the metal.
The primary python virtual machine is written C.
Operating systems are mostly written in C and assembly.
Assembly is writing for the metal.
Other posters have mentioned perl and system administration.
Python has made inroads, but perl has a major head start.
That head start includes additives suited to system administration.
System maintenance probably means learning perl to deal with existing code.
I've not learned perl.
--
Michael
Oh yes, the correct sequence. But I think (suggestions and reading) the
clear and the plain syntax is of Python is you compare it with Perl.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:02 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
The primary interest for which the latest software technology has
lured me
much is to know about how I can efficiently write the code (despite of my
job of other field) but simultaneously I would be pleased if the same piece
of code and its generation becomes the reason of knowing how exactly the
world of communications is working! That much of the knowledge I am having
that the entire world is working on '0' and '1' as everything is going
to
convert to it and then to electromagnetic signal (for communications) but
the only thing to know at first is how to write the code. Secondary things
(at later stage) would be that how that program is getting converted into a
sting of '0' and '1' which only the computer understands and transmits
through wire (as an EM wave). So at times, and it is the high time, that
despite of the fact I get very less time, this technology has become a
driving force for me that it makes me to think how a code is working?
Then the sequence is python, C, assembly.
Python will let you actually write code.
It has a clean syntax that encourages code legibility.
C is much closer to the metal.
The primary python virtual machine is written C.
Operating systems are mostly written in C and assembly.
Assembly is writing for the metal.
Other posters have mentioned perl and system administration.
Python has made inroads, but perl has a major head start.
That head start includes additives suited to system administration.
System maintenance probably means learning perl to deal with existing code.
I've not learned perl.
--
Michael hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"Pessimist: The glass is half empty.
Optimist: The glass is half full.
Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
8:33 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> wrote:
This is an excellent book. We used it when I took the data structures
course for my masters degree. In retrospect, I would have preferred
Knuth, but this was and is a great book to learn data structures. At the
time, Pascal was hot, and as I mentioned before it is a good language to
teach these concepts. But, it would drive me crazy at work when I would
see a C program written by a Pascal programmer :-). Actually, Knuth is
the Bible, and Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs is the prayer book.
Another issue for the OP is where you want to use the skills you learn.
If you learn Python, but want to write code for the Android, then maybe
Java might be the way to go. But, simply to learn a programming
language^<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_%2B_Data_Structures_%3D_Programs#...
>
, Python is relatively easy and well documented. If you are going to be
a system admin person then scripting languages such as Perl, CShell, and
BASH scripts might be useful.
I have taught C at a local University, and one group of people learned
very well and another group really hated it.
--
Jerry Feldman
Nice.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
6:52 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Bob Marcan <bob.marcan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_%2B_Data_Structures_%3D_Programs
BR, Bob
Nice book Bob.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
1:58 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:43 PM, William Case <billlinux(a)rogers.com> wrote:
Parshwa, Two basic questions: 1) Do you want to use programming as a way
to understand the inner workings of your computer? Or, 2) Do you want
to
acquire a programming language primarily to have the most used/useful
programming skills in order to write a program? (at least useful to
you). Both these objectives may be intertwined, but which is your
primary goal now? Different goals, different programs.
--
Regards Bill
The primary interest for which the latest software technology has lured me
much is to know about how I can efficiently write the code (despite of my
job of other field) but simultaneously I would be pleased if the same piece
of code and its generation becomes the reason of knowing how exactly the
world of communications is working! That much of the knowledge I am having
that the entire world is working on '0' and '1' as everything is going to
convert to it and then to electromagnetic signal (for communications) but
the only thing to know at first is how to write the code. Secondary things
(at later stage) would be that how that program is getting converted into a
sting of '0' and '1' which only the computer understands and transmits
through wire (as an EM wave). So at times, and it is the high time, that
despite of the fact I get very less time, this technology has become a
driving force for me that it makes me to think how a code is working?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:51 a.m.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com> wrote:
C is one of the richest languages ever, and was at the time of the first
standard (I was GE's rep to X3J11), and recent additions have
made it even
more
powerful.
I like C for systems work, although I use a lot more bash than I used to.
--
Bill Davidsen
Yes, C is more close to the machine (meta;, as someone quoted earlier) and
is the fundamental language.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:57 a.m.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> wrote:
I would strongly recommend Python over C for learning to program.
The syntax is very clean and clear (unlike Perl, which is visually very
noisy); it is nearly like writing out and English language description
of your code and watching it run.
There are no fiddly memory management things (unlike C, where strings
are fixed length memory arrays, and there are many pitfalls).
The documentation is pretty good (see docs.python.org).
Of course later you will want to learn other things to do particular
things or just to use other paradigms.
I would not recommend Perl for learning. And I used to write a lot of Perl.
I do suggest you learn a little about the UNIX shell (bash, ksh, sh,
zsh; all dialects of the core scripting language "sh"); being able to
write simple pipelines and shell control structures (for loops, file
patterns etc) is very useful.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson
So Python is really good and I was not wrong! But people suggested me C are
not wrong as C is more close to the metal and the machine, that is for sure.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:53 a.m.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Michael Hennebry <
hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
I'd go with python as the default language for anything
that doesn't require speed or access to the metal.
For a beginner, python has the bonus that
indentation is part of the syntax.
For speed, one can use C, fortran, java, C++ or assembly.
For access to the metal, one can use C, C++ or assembly.
With the right kind of linker tricks, I suspect one could also use fortran.
At my current job, I program in C and assembly for AVRs.
My first program here was in python.
It replaced a venerable perl program.
The venerable wouldn't run after a perl interpreter update.
Defaults aside, the choice of language can be strongly
influenced by the additives available.
Some of my current python code uses
a serial IO library and a GUI library.
Without them, I might have chosen differently.
Perl is noted for having lots of additives available.
--
Michael
Yes, C is a rich and old language but Python is not that bad, but I know
perl is replacing that.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:49 a.m.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com> wrote:
You can buy them on Amazon. I like the SAMS "Learn {something} in 24 hours"
books, they expect an hour a day for 24 days, not read until your
head
explodes.
--
Bill Davidsen
But I would prefer to a book store at first.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:48 a.m.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com> wrote:
The first thing you need to understand is that a programming language is a
*tool*, and after four decades of programming I can tell you that
choosing
the
right tool makes the job vastly easier. C is great for operating systems
and
tools and has good data types, perl is an example of a language without
types,
and can do strings and light networking stuff quite well. In general
assembler
is so seldom used that other than (maybe) device drivers, device drivers,
test
software, and similar you can skip it.
Beware learning one "best" language, if you only have a hammer everything
has to
be a nail. Currently I think C++ is most likely to have fanboys who think
it
does everything, but there are lots of others, and when someone says
"there's a
trick for that," it often means the language doesn't provide an obvious
tool to
do what you want.
Since you asked, one language: perl, three: add C and javascript. Read some
FORTRAN and COBOL programs to see how they work, you don't need to write
for
them. I never found Ada to be the best tool for anything, although I wrote
about
5k lines of it one year because a contract required it. Who better than a
political science major with an MBA to pick programming languages?
Good luck.
--
Bill Davidsen
Thanks Bill, I think C/C++ as according to you.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:45 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de>wrote:
Exactly. "C" tends to expose many of the low-level details and the
concepts behind them (e.g. pointers, addresses, registers,
bit-operations, word-sizes, interfacing with other langu).
That's why I prefer exposing newcomers to these concepts early in their,
e.g. by choosing "C". Also worth mentioning is them learning and
understanding the concept of "preprocessing", "compilation" and at
least
some details of linkage, details which many interpreted languages hide
away from them.
Ralf
Ok, so C is better according to you.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:44 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
which is exactly why Python is relatively popular as a
scientific/mathematical scripting
language.
And many of the things that are dangerous/subtle/hard-to-learn about c
are much less obscure if you are an assembly-language programmer. In
fact, they seem quite natural. Trouble is, they will *not* seem
natural to a beginning programmer.
Robert.
Yes, that's why many suggest me to start with the Python (as a beginner) and
then to jump into C++ or more OO concentrated language.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:39 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Patrick Kobly <patrick(a)kobly.com> wrote:
I suspect Toxico is speaking about a particular challenge that has come up
with educators teaching particularly OO languages as first
languages.
Specifically, because of the strong encapsulation and data hiding techniques
present in these languages, a wide ecosystem of reusable class libraries has
surrounded them - to the point where programming in these languages is often
seen as an integration effort - trying to integrate a series of class
libraries. As a result, a certain segment of the programming community has
lost understanding of huge swaths of the practice - particularly
foundational algorithms - such as searching and sorting algs - because
learning programmers just use rather than implement.
When you are reusing code (like a sorting or search algorithm, or a hash
tree class in Java), think about whether you understand (at least in basic
terms) how that code is likely implemented. If you were given the task of
implementing a hash table (because java.util.HashMap was unavailable to
you), would you be able to? Would you know where to start? Would you be
able to describe the performance characteristics of a search, insert or
delete using this structure? These are important questions that you should
learn to answer...
PK
You are true, I guess.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:38 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
I have taught 4 different languages professionally, BASIC, PASCAL,
FORTRAN(actually a language with syntax similar to FORTRAN), and C.
I
prefer to teach people C.
I am not a real C guru, but I can tell you that it has the power to
either great abstraction, or to be very close to the machine. It
depends on how the programmer views the problem. I know that there are
people who will argue with me on that point, but lets not get
sidetracked here. The goal of a programmer is to produce useful working
code that does the jobs needed to be done.
There are anomalies in all languages. Some of them are inherent to
the
language, some are due to the compilation process, in the conversion
from a somewhat human recognizable syntax to machine code in several
steps.
So to talk about the things that have bothered one person in one
language is not really material at this point. And in some cases those
issues can compiler dependent (as the A+b==0 case where the potential
errors come from whether a and b are integer, float, double or long
double, and what is the defined value of true (b==0 can be 1 or -1,
integer or long. If 1, it is binary 0000 0000 0000 0001 and -1 is 1111
1111 1111 1111 for example) And the C definition makes char and byte
synonymous at this time, although new character sets are represented
differently.
So the discussions of evaluation are compiler dependent and in most
cases somewhat machine dependent as well.
My view is of a programmer who does mostly embedded type stuff, so
it
is different from a person who specializes in say graphics, or
databases, or even text manipulation, or perhaps a medical or biological
programmer. Furthermore, some programmers specialize in mathematical
areas, such as filtering, or high precision, or signal processing.
Others work in theoretical physics.
Choosing Python to manage long chain mathematics would probably not
be
too efficient or productive. Fortran would not be good for text
manipulation. Lisp would not make a good report generator (in my
opinion anyway), APL would not be good for database administration.
I do all kinds of programming in C. I cannot do a full database
from
scratch in C, and would probably use SQL in some form for that, but for
most "quick hack" tools I still use C from the command line. Most of my
programs are repeat use, but require very little interaction and little
in the way of feedback (think YUM as an example).
When working on microcontrollers I use Assembly for most programs.
When working in my professional field as a Test Programmer, I rely on C,
BASIC, assembly and machine language (bit control of parts is required
to test them).
This is all to say that the ultimate language you use will be mostly
determined by your career path, but you will most likely use more than
one.
To learn, I recommend Intel Assembler code and C. Mostly because
they
are somewhat good examples of both power and complexity, and can produce
quick simple programs that do useful things and represent real
accomplishment.
But remember my programming is focused on functional programming.
That is programs that produce hardware operations in real time.
I would also recommend reading a lot of code. There are a lot of
oxymorons in code production. Self documenting code is one. If it were
really self documenting we probably wouldn't call it code. Logical
sequence is another. While many things take place in a logical sequence,
when programming for efficiency, what is fast and what is logical will
sometimes be at odds. Reading code and reading about code will give you
an edge in these types of issues.
You seem to have a great experience in programing, yes, you are correct,
there is not one language to program in if one is a programmer. Indeed,
reading about and then deciding is the best. I do agree with your
suggestions of C language, the unforgettable one, as one sees the ocean of
programing languages.
Programming is fun, challenging, nerve wracking, frustrating, and amazing
all at the
same time.
Regards,
Les H
Very correct and good statement, programing is fun, challenging and amazing,
that might be the reason it is compelling me to go through it even though my
job is not that of a programmer!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:30 p.m.
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/17/2010 06:28 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Les<hlhowell(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 10:00 +0000, John Haxby wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 December 2010 09:41, Ralf Corsepius<rc040203(a)freenet.de>
wrote:
>>>
>>> That said, I'd choose "C" to getting started.
It's a bit of a
>>> rough ride
>>> in the beginning, but it pays off in longer terms.
> And many of the things that are dangerous/subtle/hard-to-learn about c
> are much less obscure if you are an assembly-language programmer. In
> fact, they seem quite natural. Trouble is, they will *not* seem
> natural to a beginning programmer.
Exactly. "C" tends to expose many of the low-level details and the
concepts behind them (e.g. pointers, addresses, registers,
bit-operations, word-sizes, interfacing with other langu).
That's why I prefer exposing newcomers to these concepts early in their,
e.g. by choosing "C". Also worth mentioning is them learning and
understanding the concept of "preprocessing", "compilation" and at
least
some details of linkage, details which many interpreted languages hide
away from them.
Before doing pointers I always taught the control structures, the three part
"for" loop, vs. loop with the test at the start vs. test at the end. Which loops
can execute zero times, which at least once? Why?
C is one of the richest languages ever, and was at the time of the first
standard (I was GE's rep to X3J11), and recent additions have made it even more
powerful.
However, I still like perl for a teaching language, because it can do math,
strings, and networking. It's forgiving, just about anything you write will do
{something}, often rewarding muddy thinking. I like C for systems work, although
I use a lot more bash than I used to.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
2:17 p.m.
Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, James McKenzie
<jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net <mailto:jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net>> wrote:
I learned to program in HP BASIC, COBOL and FORTRAN, but 'c' is the
way to learn how to program, no 'seat belts'. I have TWO copies of
K&Rs book as well as the 'C Puzzle Book'.
James McKenzie
Nice, but I would request if you have the e-books of C and K&Rs book,
send me please.
You can buy them on Amazon. I like the SAMS "Learn {something} in 24
hours"
books, they expect an hour a day for 24 days, not read until your head explodes.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
11:46 a.m.
On 12/17/2010 06:28 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Les<hlhowell(a)pacbell.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 10:00 +0000, John Haxby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 December 2010 09:41, Ralf Corsepius<rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
>>
>> That said, I'd choose "C" to getting started. It's a
bit of a
>> rough ride
>> in the beginning, but it pays off in longer terms.
And many of the things that are dangerous/subtle/hard-to-learn about
c
are much less obscure if you are an assembly-language programmer. In
fact, they seem quite natural. Trouble is, they will *not* seem
natural to a beginning programmer.
Exactly. "C" tends to expose many of
the low-level details and the
concepts behind them (e.g. pointers, addresses, registers,
bit-operations, word-sizes, interfacing with other langu).
That's why I prefer exposing newcomers to these concepts early in their,
e.g. by choosing "C". Also worth mentioning is them learning and
understanding the concept of "preprocessing", "compilation" and at
least
some details of linkage, details which many interpreted languages hide
away from them.
Ralf
10:59 a.m.
On 12/17/2010 5:14 AM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Toxico Nimbus <ToxN(a)free.fr
<mailto:ToxN@free.fr>> wrote:
- Don't use something you couldn't create yourself
Toxico Nimbus
How you imagine could a beginner create something which he is trying
to learn? Could you do that by the time you started learning?
I suspect Toxico is speaking about a particular challenge that has come
up with educators teaching particularly OO languages as first
languages. Specifically, because of the strong encapsulation and data
hiding techniques present in these languages, a wide ecosystem of
reusable class libraries has surrounded them - to the point where
programming in these languages is often seen as an integration effort -
trying to integrate a series of class libraries. As a result, a certain
segment of the programming community has lost understanding of huge
swaths of the practice - particularly foundational algorithms - such as
searching and sorting algs - because learning programmers just use
rather than implement.
When you are reusing code (like a sorting or search algorithm, or a hash
tree class in Java), think about whether you understand (at least in
basic terms) how that code is likely implemented. If you were given the
task of implementing a hash table (because java.util.HashMap was
unavailable to you), would you be able to? Would you know where to
start? Would you be able to describe the performance characteristics of
a search, insert or delete using this structure? These are important
questions that you should learn to answer...
PK
6:14 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Toxico Nimbus <ToxN(a)free.fr> wrote:
First thing to learn is how to encode a logical process into a
programming
syntax (an algorithm). To do that easily, you'll have to pick a language
with a human syntax and easy structure :
Choose Python, Basic, Pascal/Modula, LISP. With those keep away from
complex features such as objects orientation and create simple programs that
you can enrich.
Next thing to learn is the internal gear works of these high level
languages, so pick a very low level one (plain C (not C99), assembler).
Now you're ready for more abstract things like object orientation (C++,
Java), functional programming (caml, haskell).
So I guess, at first, Python would be good.
And just two goo advices :
- Don't try to outsmart anything nor anyone
Toxico, this is not the discussion going on! I guess you have gone some
other track!
- Don't use something you couldn't create yourself
Toxico Nimbus
How you imagine could a beginner create something which he is trying to
learn? Could you do that by the time you started learning?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
4:58 a.m.
Le 16/12/2010 18:02, Parshwa Murdia a écrit :
hi,
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
programing, which programing language one should start with? In the
ocean of the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one
justify it.
When learning to program, you must respect some steps.
First thing to learn is how to encode a logical process into a
programming syntax (an algorithm). To do that easily, you'll have to
pick a language with a human syntax and easy structure :
Choose Python, Basic, Pascal/Modula, LISP. With those keep away from
complex features such as objects orientation and create simple programs
that you can enrich.
Next thing to learn is the internal gear works of these high level
languages, so pick a very low level one (plain C (not C99), assembler).
Now you're ready for more abstract things like object orientation (C++,
Java), functional programming (caml, haskell).
And just two goo advices :
- Don't try to outsmart anything nor anyone
- Don't use something you couldn't create yourself
--
Toxico Nimbus
4:47 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:11 PM, John Haxby <john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/
It doesn't cover basic programming concepts, and some of the terms will be
unfamiliar the first time through, but it'll get you started.
jch
Oh I see.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
4:46 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM, John Haxby <john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Python is a better start.
It's very hard to say whether one programming language is better than
another. I've written stuff in, oh, I can't remember how many languages,
but I couldn't say "C is better than Cobol" or "Fortran is better
than
Forth" or "Prolog is better than PHP", they just don't stand that kind
of
comparison. However, some languages stand out as being good for a
beginning programmer: Algol68 (well, that's what I learned first, I'm fond
of it, but it's long gone really), CLU (ditto), Java and Python. For ease
of access, I'd come down to Python, it's available everywhere and it's very
easy to start. There's a good tutorial on python.org as well.
jch
Yes, okay, Python as I guessed would really be better! I agree that one
cannot say that one language is better than the other but as the beginner is
confused, he can.
Collecting all the conclusions, I guess and think now that Python would be a
better option. The easier one too.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
4:41 a.m.
On 17 December 2010 10:37, John Haxby <john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There's a good tutorial on python.org as well.
http://docs.python.org/tutorial/
It doesn't cover basic programming concepts, and some of the terms will be
unfamiliar the first time through, but it'll get you started.
jch
4:37 a.m.
On 17 December 2010 10:24, Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So C is better then? If you compare with Python, which is better place to
start with?
Python is a better start.
It's very hard to say whether one programming language is better than
another. I've written stuff in, oh, I can't remember how many languages,
but I couldn't say "C is better than Cobol" or "Fortran is better than
Forth" or "Prolog is better than PHP", they just don't stand that kind
of
comparison. However, some languages stand out as being good for a
beginning programmer: Algol68 (well, that's what I learned first, I'm fond
of it, but it's long gone really), CLU (ditto), Java and Python. For ease
of access, I'd come down to Python, it's available everywhere and it's very
easy to start. There's a good tutorial on python.org as well.
jch
4:28 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM, John Haxby <john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Neither C not C++ can be called beginners programming languages. It's not
the size of C, it's the hidden complexity. And problem with C++
is the size
_and_ the complexity and knowing which of the zillion "features" to avoid
and why.
jch
Ok, then Python is the best to go for?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
4:25 a.m.
On 17 December 2010 10:21, Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Andrew Haley <aph(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
C is a fairly small language and C++ is a fairly large one. There is
> a significant number of people who believe that C++ is too large.
> However, many of the C++ features are useful. Apart from that, it's
> all just opinion.
>
> Andrew.
>
Yes opinions but if we compare the same with Python, would it really be a
good option for a beginner?
Neither C not C++ can be called beginners programming languages. It's not
the size of C, it's the hidden complexity. And problem with C++ is the size
_and_ the complexity and knowing which of the zillion "features" to avoid
and why.
jch
4:21 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Andrew Haley <aph(a)redhat.com> wrote:
C is a fairly small language and C++ is a fairly large one. There is
a significant number of people who believe that C++ is too large.
However, many of the C++ features are useful. Apart from that, it's
all just opinion.
Andrew.
Yes opinions but if we compare the same with Python, would it really be a
good option for a beginner?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
4:20 a.m.
On 17 Dec 2010 at 15:08, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:08:46 +0530
Subject: Re: About programing, a general question
From: Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com>
To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Send reply to: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
<mailto:users-request@lists.fedoraproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<mailto:users-request@lists.fedoraproject.org?subject=subscribe>
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:18 AM, James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>
wrote:
COBOL is still very much in use in the financial industry and will
probably be so for years to come. It helped me out in my last job as I
was handed a print-out and found the problem in a matter of minutes.
Missing punctuation (period.)
James McKenzie
But I guess C would be good!
OpenCobol is an implementation of COBOL that works on Linux and
windows, and it takes Cobol code, but converts it into C that is then compiled.
I have heard of a number of projects being migrated from mainframe systems
to opencobol. The C code does the job, but writing it in C is generally smaller,
but a lot of work.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor
Guam Community College Computer Center
mailto:mikes@kuentos.guam.net
mailto:msetzerii@gmail.com
http://www.guam.net/home/mikes
Guam - Where America's Day Begins
G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer
http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+----------------------------------------------------------+
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
Number of Seti Units Returned: 19,471
Processing time: 32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes
(Total Hours: 287,489)
BOINC@HOME CREDITS
SETI 10119018.500954 | EINSTEIN 5086853.040851
ROSETTA 2599032.707714 | ABC 3694200.474661
4:10 a.m.
On 12/17/2010 10:06 AM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Andras Simon<szajmi(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, John Haxby<john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> C++ is worse.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know but you only (the first person) who said me it is the worse!
>
> This shows that you're indeed new to the world of programming :-)
Yes I am new in the world of programing, if you point to me. Is C++ really
that worse and never a good option?
C is a fairly small language and C++ is a fairly large one. There is
a significant number of people who believe that C++ is too large.
However, many of the C++ features are useful. Apart from that, it's
all just opinion.
Andrew.
4:06 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Andras Simon <szajmi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, John Haxby
<john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> C++ is worse.
>>
>
>
> I don't know but you only (the first person) who said me it is the worse!
This shows that you're indeed new to the world of programming :-)
Andras
Yes I am new in the world of programing, if you point to me. Is C++ really
that worse and never a good option?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
4:04 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM, John Haxby <john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, no, C is dead easy to start but it gets really difficult really
quickly. Consider these for a beginner:
* Write the declaration of signal(3) -- it takes two parameters, an
integer and a pointer to a function that takes an integer paramater and
returns void. Explain why the parentheses are needed.
* Why does "a + b == 0" work the way you expect but "a & b == 0"
does not?
Are you sure it doesn't?
* What is the difference between "const char *s" and "char * const
s"?
* What is the difference between "char *s" and "char s[]"?
Absolutely no idea dude.
Admitedly the very first of these is not likely to come up as a
beginner,
but the other three will, and they'll bite you good and hard.
C is not a simple language, it has a lot of subtlety and it is incredibly
expressive, but I would not use it as the beginning language for someone who
wants to learn to program. I'd start with a language that was designed
carefully. There aren't any Algol68 compilers any more :-) but I'd choose
python or java to learn to program. Once you know what you want to do then
you can go for something else, something applicable to what you want to do.
When you know the basics those questions about C are still difficult, but
at least you're not trying to understand them at the same time as knowing
what happens to a parameter when you pass it to a function or, for that
matter, what a function is.
jch
For Python I am agreeing with you as many have suggested me this. I hope it
would be good.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
4:02 a.m.
On 12/17/10, Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, John Haxby
<john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
C++ is worse.
>
I don't know but you only (the first person) who said me it is the worse!
This shows that you're indeed new to the world of programming :-)
Andras
4 a.m.
On 17 December 2010 09:41, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
That said, I'd choose "C" to getting started. It's a bit of a rough
ride
in the beginning, but it pays off in longer terms.
Actually, no, C is dead easy to start but it gets really difficult really
quickly. Consider these for a beginner:
* Write the declaration of signal(3) -- it takes two parameters, an
integer and a pointer to a function that takes an integer paramater and
returns void. Explain why the parentheses are needed.
* Why does "a + b == 0" work the way you expect but "a & b == 0"
does not?
Are you sure it doesn't?
* What is the difference between "const char *s" and "char * const
s"?
* What is the difference between "char *s" and "char s[]"?
Admitedly the very first of these is not likely to come up as a beginner,
but the other three will, and they'll bite you good and hard.
C is not a simple language, it has a lot of subtlety and it is incredibly
expressive, but I would not use it as the beginning language for someone who
wants to learn to program. I'd start with a language that was designed
carefully. There aren't any Algol68 compilers any more :-) but I'd choose
python or java to learn to program. Once you know what you want to do then
you can go for something else, something applicable to what you want to do.
When you know the basics those questions about C are still difficult, but
at least you're not trying to understand them at the same time as knowing
what happens to a parameter when you pass it to a function or, for that
matter, what a function is.
jch
3:59 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
Hasn't python replaced BASIC?
/me ducks and hides for cover.
Besides this, programming languages are "tools". This means, like
everywhere in real life, "no tool fits all needs", each is better or
less suitable for certain use-cases, as well as there are other factor
to be considered, such as "popularity" (availability of documentation,
examples, number of people/friends being able to assist), long term
stability/availability/sustainability of a programming language,
availability of libraries to one will want to reuse etc.
That said, I'd choose "C" to getting started. It's a bit of a rough
ride
in the beginning, but it pays off in longer terms.
Ralf
Yes, but I guess (not pretty sure) if Python would be better to learn (as
compared with 'C', the mother)...?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:57 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Plus-5th-Stephen-Prata/dp/0672326965
It's a series of lessons that starts with very basic programming concepts
and
builds from there.
For learning about screen control, I recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Programmers-Guide-NCurses-Dan-Gookin/dp/0470107596/...
It's not as "great" as the Prata book above but it's the best ncurses
tutorial
that I'm aware of.
I wish I could recommend a good book about GTK, but unfortunately I
haven't found any that are really exceptional. Perhaps someone else can
recommend something in that regard.
Thanks for the links. Seems cool books.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:48 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, John Haxby <john.haxby(a)gmail.com> wrote:
C++ is worse.
I don't know but you only (the first person) who said me it is the worse!
> If I was writing a beginning programming book I'd probably choose Java; if
> I was teaching someone personally I'd probably choose Python. And once
> they know how to write programs, well, they can make their own mind up, it
> depends what they want to do.
> jch
I agree for Python as many others also suggest me the same.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:45 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have K&R's book, too, and that's how I learned c, but I already knew
PL/I, Fortran, and, of course, Basic. I wouldn't recommend any
of
those languages for a beginning programmer. I wouldn't recommend c++,
either.
That's okay, but going for C++ directly or C. I think it is C first.
I've started using Python as a scripting language, and I think
it's a
better language for the random computer user to know than most others
because it can work as a hack and run scripting language or as the
basis for more serious programming, but that's my opinion of the
moment. If you *do* learn Python, I think the fork into most other
languages will be easier. Do **not** begin with c. If you want to
deal with machines at that level, learn and use assembly language,
which can be a lot of fun and is not encumbered with funky
abstractions (other than what the OS forces on you).
Robert.
In the last para, you say to start with C++ but again you emphazis to learn
Python, I am confused like many others are. But many programers confirm the
use of Python (over C and bash for Linux). Would it really be that pretty
cool that it is better than C? My intention is to learn basic of Linux, so
keeping an eye at the future, Python would really be good for Linux too?
(don't know but ask)
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:41 a.m.
On 12/16/2010 07:42 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Thursday 16 December 2010 17:02:25 Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
> programing, which programing language one should start with?
[snip]
If you know *absolutely* *nothing* about programming, you may want to start
with, say, BASIC (that is, if there still is some implementation of it for
Linux out there :-) ).
Hasn't python replaced BASIC?
/me ducks and hides for cover.
Besides this, programming languages are "tools". This means, like
everywhere in real life, "no tool fits all needs", each is better or
less suitable for certain use-cases, as well as there are other factor
to be considered, such as "popularity" (availability of documentation,
examples, number of people/friends being able to assist), long term
stability/availability/sustainability of a programming language,
availability of libraries to one will want to reuse etc.
That said, I'd choose "C" to getting started. It's a bit of a rough ride
in the beginning, but it pays off in longer terms.
Ralf
3:38 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:18 AM, James McKenzie
<jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>wrote:
COBOL is still very much in use in the financial industry and will
probably be so for years to come. It helped me out in my last job as
I
was handed a print-out and found the problem in a matter of minutes.
Missing punctuation (period.)
James McKenzie
But I guess C would be good!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:37 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, James McKenzie
<jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>wrote:
I learned to program in HP BASIC, COBOL and FORTRAN, but 'c' is the way to
learn how to program, no 'seat belts'. I have TWO copies of
K&Rs book as
well as the 'C Puzzle Book'.
James McKenzie
Nice, but I would request if you have the e-books of C and K&Rs book, send
me please.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:36 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Marvin Kosmal <mkosmal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If you really want to learn the metal.. Assembly is the language to
learn. Then Bash, SED, and AWK. Good luck
Marvin
I would again say that:
I have been away from the ocean of programing language, but (apart from my
job) I am trying to start learning a new language (for the sake of interest
to know more about the technology), so wanted to understand the the basic
principles keeping in my mind that I have to learn Linux in future, of
course because of its thousand times for security as compared to the Windows
OS. So as in future, I would be turning towards Linux, I guess C would be
good (based on the suggestions of the community members) though I always
understand that there are principle which are to be grasped at first and
these are same irrespective of the language adopted via interest. Possibly,
C++ would not be that easy to start with (without knowing C!!) as it is
merely the 'More C', what guys comment. Perhaps, taking the first priority
as Linux, I hope I would not be having bad luck if I starting with C and
simultaneously look into the basics of Linux too.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:34 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Rodolfo Alcazar Portillo <nospaze(a)gmail.com
wrote:
My first programming experience started with Coco-TRS80 basic. Then I
knew I will love computers.
But as amazed as I was, I was hungry to learn the guts of programming.
Lucky me, I was introduced to the Norton Pink Shirt Book. Wow. Learning
Pascal, Cobol and Fortran in one year, with 12 years old turned to be a
piece of cake. C would follow.
The book deals mainly with simple hardware of those ages and a little
bit of 8086 assembler, AFAIR. Knowing all of that, understanding Basic,
C or any programming paradigm turned to be easy for me.
Then I worked for 15 years. A couple of years ago, on vacation, I read
the "C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie,
and made all exercises, just for fun. That's another beautiful book.
That's my history. I would advise to start from the low level: study a
bit of hardware, to be able to learn C or/and Assembler (low level
programming, maybe you can skip assembler, or just read some code).
After, enjoying high-level language programming (java, informix, perl,
php, python, etc.) will be your prize.
I guess, yes, C would be good but do you agree that it is good over Python
(for the beginners like me, having known the fact that programing principles
are same)?
(If anyone has a pdf copy of the Pink-Shirt Book, I would thank if
mailed, my original is 5000 miles away :)
Cheers!
I am first time hearing this book name.
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:32 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Mastering C essentially means mastering procedural programming in general.
The
two next conceptually different things you want to learn are
object-oriented
programming (say, C++), and functional programming (say, lisp or prolog).
After that you can say you've seen it all, and every other language you
come
across will just be one of these three things, in a new syntax (and it's
own
quirks).
Yes sure, but I am confused only in three of the languages - Python (people
say easier than 'C') bash if Linux is the case (as my future intention is to
learn Linux) or C (the very basic). I know though, the basic principles
remain the same for any programing language.
Every other language eventually gets translated into an executable
("binary")
code before being executed on a machine. This is the purpose of a compiler
---
it takes the source code written in some language and translates it to set
of
instructions for the processor (an executable). The assembly language is
basically a human-readable form of this, and represents the lowest level of
understanding of how any computer program actually works. The only thing
beyond this is just hardware.
Of course, assembly is so low level that it is completely unusable for
anything other than conceptual understanding (and reverse engineering :-)
).
Today everybody uses one of the higher languages which are much more
expressive (in human terms). But they all get translated to something that
looks like assembly before being executed, so if you are familiar with that
you can have a good idea how everything else is constructed, at least in
principle. ;-)
HTH, :-)
Marko
I came to the conclusion to go for C (over bash or Python) and I hope it
would be good...?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
3:27 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Barry <txscope(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
The reason you have heard so many answers is because the question
you
ask can represent so many different questions. If I understand you
correctly, you want to know about the machines and what they can do.
Programming languages are only a part of the picture. They are the means
to communicate with the metal. The low level languages are indeed closer
to the metal, and require you to deal with memory and such. They require
more knowledge of networking protocols, and more of lots of things. All
sophisticated programming requires a lot of math. Higher level
languages take you farther and farther from the metal, but let you do
some rather elaborate things quickly and easily. It all depends on what
you want.
But forget COBOL -- no jobs, not interesting. And HTML is a markup
language for displaying documents; it's not a programming language.
It's not a bad idea to think of schooling. CS courses expose you to a
lot that you'll never get from just fooling around.
I have been away from the ocean of programing language, but (apart from my
job) I am trying to start learning a new language (for the sake of interest
to know more about the technology), so wanted to understand the the basic
principles keeping in my mind that I have to learn Linux in future, of
course because of its thousand times for security as compared to the Windows
OS. So as in future, I would be turning towards Linux, I guess C would be
good (based on the suggestions of the community members) though I always
understand that there are principle which are to be grasped at first and
these are same irrespective of the language adopted via interest. Possibly,
C++ would not be that easy to start with (without knowing C!!) as it is
merely the 'More C', what guys comment. Perhaps, taking the first priority
as Linux, I hope I would not be having bad luck if I starting with C and
simultaneously look into the basics of Linux too.
If you say for Bash, I don't know but ask if it is an independent language
like C or just supporting scripts for Linux?
Yes, many members suggest me C over Python too, for the beginners but as
someone claims Python is simpler and faster and not that low level as like
C, the mother of many languages!
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
2:54 a.m.
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 10:00 +0000, John Haxby wrote:
On 17 December 2010 09:41, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
That said, I'd choose "C" to getting started. It's a bit of a
rough ride
in the beginning, but it pays off in longer terms.
Actually, no, C is dead easy to start but it gets really difficult
really quickly. Consider these for a beginner:
* Write the declaration of signal(3) -- it takes two parameters, an
integer and a pointer to a function that takes an integer paramater
and returns void. Explain why the parentheses are needed.
* Why does "a + b == 0" work the way you expect but "a & b == 0"
does
not? Are you sure it doesn't?
* What is the difference between "const char *s" and "char * const
s"?
* What is the difference between "char *s" and "char s[]"?
Admitedly the very first of these is not likely to come up as a
beginner, but the other three will, and they'll bite you good and
hard.
C is not a simple language, it has a lot of subtlety and it is
incredibly expressive, but I would not use it as the beginning
language for someone who wants to learn to program. I'd start with a
language that was designed carefully. There aren't any Algol68
compilers any more :-) but I'd choose python or java to learn to
program. Once you know what you want to do then you can go for
something else, something applicable to what you want to do. When you
know the basics those questions about C are still difficult, but at
least you're not trying to understand them at the same time as knowing
what happens to a parameter when you pass it to a function or, for
that matter, what a function is.
jch
I have taught 4 different languages professionally, BASIC, PASCAL,
FORTRAN(actually a language with syntax similar to FORTRAN), and C. I
prefer to teach people C.
I am not a real C guru, but I can tell you that it has the power to
either great abstraction, or to be very close to the machine. It
depends on how the programmer views the problem. I know that there are
people who will argue with me on that point, but lets not get
sidetracked here. The goal of a programmer is to produce useful working
code that does the jobs needed to be done.
There are anomalies in all languages. Some of them are inherent to the
language, some are due to the compilation process, in the conversion
from a somewhat human recognizable syntax to machine code in several
steps.
So to talk about the things that have bothered one person in one
language is not really material at this point. And in some cases those
issues can compiler dependent (as the A+b==0 case where the potential
errors come from whether a and b are integer, float, double or long
double, and what is the defined value of true (b==0 can be 1 or -1,
integer or long. If 1, it is binary 0000 0000 0000 0001 and -1 is 1111
1111 1111 1111 for example) And the C definition makes char and byte
synonymous at this time, although new character sets are represented
differently.
So the discussions of evaluation are compiler dependent and in most
cases somewhat machine dependent as well.
My view is of a programmer who does mostly embedded type stuff, so it
is different from a person who specializes in say graphics, or
databases, or even text manipulation, or perhaps a medical or biological
programmer. Furthermore, some programmers specialize in mathematical
areas, such as filtering, or high precision, or signal processing.
Others work in theoretical physics.
Choosing Python to manage long chain mathematics would probably not be
too efficient or productive. Fortran would not be good for text
manipulation. Lisp would not make a good report generator (in my
opinion anyway), APL would not be good for database administration.
I do all kinds of programming in C. I cannot do a full database from
scratch in C, and would probably use SQL in some form for that, but for
most "quick hack" tools I still use C from the command line. Most of my
programs are repeat use, but require very little interaction and little
in the way of feedback (think YUM as an example).
When working on microcontrollers I use Assembly for most programs.
When working in my professional field as a Test Programmer, I rely on C,
BASIC, assembly and machine language (bit control of parts is required
to test them).
This is all to say that the ultimate language you use will be mostly
determined by your career path, but you will most likely use more than
one.
To learn, I recommend Intel Assembler code and C. Mostly because they
are somewhat good examples of both power and complexity, and can produce
quick simple programs that do useful things and represent real
accomplishment.
But remember my programming is focused on functional programming.
That is programs that produce hardware operations in real time.
I would also recommend reading a lot of code. There are a lot of
oxymorons in code production. Self documenting code is one. If it were
really self documenting we probably wouldn't call it code. Logical
sequence is another. While many things take place in a logical sequence,
when programming for efficiency, what is fast and what is logical will
sometimes be at odds. Reading code and reading about code will give you
an edge in these types of issues.
Pick a language and work on it. If you get frustrated or need help,
see if the language has a forum. Read it. Ask for help. There are dumb
questions, but not to ask them is even worse. If someone blasts you
about the dumb question, then tell them you don't know much and are
willing to learn, but then make the real effort to learn. Programming
is fun, challenging, nerve wracking, frustrating, and amazing all at the
same time.
Regards,
Les H
2:54 a.m.
On 16 December 2010 17:02, Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
programing, which programing language one should start with? In the
ocean of
the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one justify it.
Some say Python but again they say it is Perl which is better every time
then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but again some emphasis to
use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB or COBOL and some say to
learn web based programing like HTML, PHP, ASP.Net. In this ocean who is
just starting to learn which one he should prefer?
Probably the best way is to visit your local (good) bookshop and find a book
called something like "Beginning programming" or sign up for a class in an
evening school. If you like the book, use the language it suggests.
When I taught someone to program a while ago I was careful to pick a
language that doesn't have weird gotchas, I wanted something that was
designed carefully that doesn't have difficult to explain concepts or
exceptions. I wanted something that is reasonably applicable to future
programming languages but something that is easy to get started with.
Throwing someone in at the deep end and starting with C or assembler
because its closest to the hardware does not teach you how to program. C++
is worse. You also want something that is platform agnostic (at least to a
degree). If I was writing a beginning programming book I'd probably choose
Java; if I was teaching someone personally I'd probably choose Python. And
once they know how to write programs, well, they can make their own mind up,
it depends what they want to do.
jch
11:10 p.m.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:44:58 -0700
James McKenzie wrote:
I learned to program in HP BASIC, COBOL and FORTRAN, but 'c'
is the way to
learn how to program, no 'seat belts'. I have TWO copies of K&Rs book as
well as the 'C Puzzle Book'.
For anyone who's new to programming and wants to learn C, I highly (highly!)
recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Plus-5th-Stephen-Prata/dp/0672326965
It's a series of lessons that starts with very basic programming concepts and
builds from there.
For learning about screen control, I recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Programmers-Guide-NCurses-Dan-Gookin/dp/0470107596/...
It's not as "great" as the Prata book above but it's the best ncurses
tutorial
that I'm aware of.
I wish I could recommend a good book about GTK, but unfortunately I
haven't found any that are really exceptional. Perhaps someone else can
recommend something in that regard.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
9:48 p.m.
On 12/16/10 10:33 AM, Barry wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:32 +0530, "Parshwa
Murdia"<b330bkn(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> hi,
>
> If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
> programing, which programing language one should start with? In the ocean
> of
> the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one justify it.
> Some say Python but again they say it is Perl which is better every time
> then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but again some emphasis
> to
> use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB or COBOL and some say to
> learn web based programing like HTML, PHP, ASP.Net. In this ocean who is
> just starting to learn which one he should prefer?
>
> Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have
> the
> basic understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like the
> CPU.
> Not to generate the big projects for the management processes, not even
> banking system but to know the basic of programing like how to handle the
> machines at the first, for that purpose, for the the scratch level
> purpose
> and for the one which is good even for Linux, what programing language
> should one like me, initiate?
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Parshwa Murdia
>
> --
The reason you have heard so many answers is because the question you
ask can represent so many different questions. If I understand you
correctly, you want to know about the machines and what they can do.
Programming languages are only a part of the picture. They are the means
to communicate with the metal. The low level languages are indeed closer
to the metal, and require you to deal with memory and such. They require
more knowledge of networking protocols, and more of lots of things. All
sophisticated programming requires a lot of math. Higher level
languages take you farther and farther from the metal, but let you do
some rather elaborate things quickly and easily. It all depends on what
you want.
But forget COBOL -- no jobs, not interesting.
COBOL is still very much in use in
the financial industry and will
probably be so for years to come. It helped me out in my last job as I
was handed a print-out and found the problem in a matter of minutes.
Missing punctuation (period.)
Schooling is somewhat good. They teach you what they THINK is good
programming practices. I've had a conversation or two about 'Best
Coding Practices' with a couple of the folks on the Wine Development
list and other projects. I will state that all code should be
documented, no matter what language. Both externally and internally.
Not necessary to do this with each line, but with each process (expected
inputs/outputs and what the code should and should NOT do.
James McKenzie
9:44 p.m.
On 12/16/10 10:12 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:02:25 -0600 Parshwa Murdia<b330bkn(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> hi,
>
> If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the programing,
which programing language one should start with? In the ocean of the languages, to start
with is really very typical. Can one justify it. Some say Python but again they say it is
Perl which is better every time then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but again
some emphasis to use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB or COBOL and some say to
learn web based programing like HTML, PHP, ASP.Net. In this ocean who is just starting to
learn which one he should prefer?
>
> Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have the basic
understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like the CPU. Not to generate the
big projects for the management processes, not even banking system but to know the basic
of programing like how to handle the machines at the first, for that purpose, for the the
scratch level purpose and for the one which is good even for Linux, what programing
language should one like me, initiate?
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Parshwa Murdia
In my opinion, if you really want to learn computing and its
intricacies, unforgiving C would be the place to start.
Ranjan
+1
I learned to program in HP BASIC, COBOL and FORTRAN, but 'c' is the way to learn
how to program, no 'seat belts'. I have TWO copies of K&Rs book as well as
the 'C Puzzle Book'.
James McKenzie
3:42 p.m.
On 12/16/10, Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
hi,
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
programing, which programing language one should start with? In the ocean of
the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one justify it.
Some say Python but again they say it is Perl which is better every time
then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but again some emphasis to
use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB or COBOL and some say to
learn web based programing like HTML, PHP, ASP.Net. In this ocean who is
just starting to learn which one he should prefer?
Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have the
basic understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like the CPU.
Not to generate the big projects for the management processes, not even
banking system but to know the basic of programing like how to handle the
machines at the first, for that purpose, for the the scratch level purpose
and for the one which is good even for Linux, what programing language
should one like me, initiate?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
If you really want to learn the metal.. Assembly is the language to
learn. Then Bash, SED, and AWK. Good luck
Marvin
2:32 p.m.
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 22:32 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do
the
programing, which programing language one should start with?
My first programming experience started with Coco-TRS80 basic. Then I
knew I will love computers.
But as amazed as I was, I was hungry to learn the guts of programming.
Lucky me, I was introduced to the Norton Pink Shirt Book. Wow. Learning
Pascal, Cobol and Fortran in one year, with 12 years old turned to be a
piece of cake. C would follow.
The book deals mainly with simple hardware of those ages and a little
bit of 8086 assembler, AFAIR. Knowing all of that, understanding Basic,
C or any programming paradigm turned to be easy for me.
Then I worked for 15 years. A couple of years ago, on vacation, I read
the "C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie,
and made all exercises, just for fun. That's another beautiful book.
That's my history. I would advise to start from the low level: study a
bit of hardware, to be able to learn C or/and Assembler (low level
programming, maybe you can skip assembler, or just read some code).
After, enjoying high-level language programming (java, informix, perl,
php, python, etc.) will be your prize.
(If anyone has a pdf copy of the Pink-Shirt Book, I would thank if
mailed, my original is 5000 miles away :)
Cheers!
----------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Alcazar Portillo - nospaze(a)gmail.com
otbits.blogspot.com / counter.li.org: #367962
----------------------------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."
-- Rich Kulawiec
12:42 p.m.
On Thursday 16 December 2010 17:02:25 Parshwa Murdia wrote:
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do
the
programing, which programing language one should start with?
[snip]
If you know *absolutely* *nothing* about programming, you may want to start
with, say, BASIC (that is, if there still is some implementation of it for
Linux out there :-) ).
Also, try to find some good book on programming in general, for beginners, to
learn about algorithms, independent of any particular language implementation.
Learn what is iteration, recursion, loops, branching, sorting, I/O, and such
things.
Try to find a "Hello World" example program, written in basic, pascal, C, bash,
Perl, Python, fortran, etc... Compare and contrast.
Once you become familiar with the most essential concepts of programming and
have introductory-level experience in at least two languages (say, basic and
pascal, or python and perl), go and learn C seriously (get a K&R book or one
of many others which people can recommend).
Mastering C essentially means mastering procedural programming in general. The
two next conceptually different things you want to learn are object-oriented
programming (say, C++), and functional programming (say, lisp or prolog).
After that you can say you've seen it all, and every other language you come
across will just be one of these three things, in a new syntax (and it's own
quirks).
At that point you need to decide *what* *you* *want* *to* *do* with all this
knowledge, and then choose the language which is most appropriate tool for the
task at hand.
It takes cca 10 years to go through the whole thing. One typically starts when
entering highschool (or before), and by the end of highschool (say 4 years)
one has a working knowlegde of C, pascal or equivalent procedural language.
During the 4-5 years at the university one learns the concepts OO and
functional programming, and can grasp proper C++ and lisp. The additional 1-2
years are needed to master the syntax and quirks of any other language you may
be interested in. Total of 10 years, give or take. ;-) Of course, if you are
devoted and dedicated full-time to learning programming, you can do it less
time, say 3-5 years.
That would be my advice on how to embark in learning programming in general. I
guess most people have went through some variation of this path. :-)
Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to
have the
basic understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like the CPU.
Not to generate the big projects for the management processes, not even
banking system but to know the basic of programing like how to handle the
machines at the first, for that purpose, for the the scratch level purpose
and for the one which is good even for Linux, what programing language
should one like me, initiate?
If you want to understand how things work low-level, you want to learn
assembly.
Caveat --- don't even *try* to learn assembly before you have mastered at
least C in the scheme above. ;-)
Every other language eventually gets translated into an executable ("binary")
code before being executed on a machine. This is the purpose of a compiler ---
it takes the source code written in some language and translates it to set of
instructions for the processor (an executable). The assembly language is
basically a human-readable form of this, and represents the lowest level of
understanding of how any computer program actually works. The only thing
beyond this is just hardware.
Of course, assembly is so low level that it is completely unusable for
anything other than conceptual understanding (and reverse engineering :-) ).
Today everybody uses one of the higher languages which are much more
expressive (in human terms). But they all get translated to something that
looks like assembly before being executed, so if you are familiar with that
you can have a good idea how everything else is constructed, at least in
principle. ;-)
HTH, :-)
Marko
11:33 a.m.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:32 +0530, "Parshwa Murdia" <b330bkn(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
hi,
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
programing, which programing language one should start with? In the ocean
of
the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one justify it.
Some say Python but again they say it is Perl which is better every time
then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but again some emphasis
to
use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB or COBOL and some say to
learn web based programing like HTML, PHP, ASP.Net. In this ocean who is
just starting to learn which one he should prefer?
Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have
the
basic understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like the
CPU.
Not to generate the big projects for the management processes, not even
banking system but to know the basic of programing like how to handle the
machines at the first, for that purpose, for the the scratch level
purpose
and for the one which is good even for Linux, what programing language
should one like me, initiate?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
--
The reason you have heard so many answers is because the question you
ask can represent so many different questions. If I understand you
correctly, you want to know about the machines and what they can do.
Programming languages are only a part of the picture. They are the means
to communicate with the metal. The low level languages are indeed closer
to the metal, and require you to deal with memory and such. They require
more knowledge of networking protocols, and more of lots of things. All
sophisticated programming requires a lot of math. Higher level
languages take you farther and farther from the metal, but let you do
some rather elaborate things quickly and easily. It all depends on what
you want.
But forget COBOL -- no jobs, not interesting. And HTML is a markup
language for displaying documents; it's not a programming language.
It's not a bad idea to think of schooling. CS courses expose you to a
lot that you'll never get from just fooling around.
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail
11:12 a.m.
In my opinion, if you really want to learn computing and its
intricacies, unforgiving C would be the place to start.
Ranjan
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:02:25 -0600 Parshwa Murdia <b330bkn(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
hi,
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the programing, which
programing language one should start with? In the ocean of the languages, to start with is
really very typical. Can one justify it. Some say Python but again they say it is Perl
which is better every time then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but again some
emphasis to use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB or COBOL and some say to learn
web based programing like HTML, PHP, ASP.Net. In this ocean who is just starting to learn
which one he should prefer?
Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have the basic
understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like the CPU. Not to generate the
big projects for the management processes, not even banking system but to know the basic
of programing like how to handle the machines at the first, for that purpose, for the the
scratch level purpose and for the one which is good even for Linux, what programing
language should one like me, initiate?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
12:54 p.m.
On 12/21/2010 01:16 PM, William Case wrote
I am not a programmer, but I wanted the answer you seem to want.
How
does the damn thing work? More explicitly:
How does human understandable information get converted by a machine
into electrical data; then store it; may or may not, transform, compare,
and/or relocate the data; and then re-present the data as information
meaningful to humans?
I found the answer in "The C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan
and Dennis M. Ritchie. This book is such a basic that it is often
referred to just as K&R. If you try to simply use this book as a
tutorial for the C language it is too difficult. Almost every sentence
contains a new concept. But K&R and 'C' are closest to the metal. It's
description and particularly its appendices are used by programmers
mainly as a reference. It really is a text on how to best write code so
that the compiler can use your 'C' code by translating it into machine
language. It is also, therefore, basic instructions for compiler writers
on how they have writer their compilers.
A big however! I found that when I took my time, and worked each new
concept through, with liberal use of google and some tutorial sites,
with some contemplation on my part, with some reference to the the basic
electrical properties of transistors, capacitors, Direct Current and
crystals, I was able to come to a fairly complete (or at least useful)
understanding of how my computer worked and what the text instructions
that I was imputing were doing.
In addition, I spent a couple of afternoons exploring assembly language
and the IS-32 instruction set. Looking at how compilers work, and how
they translate your text code into machine code (the '1' and '0's you
mentioned) from libraries makes the need for precise instructions (text
syntax) clear and less of a burden.
I found that by using K&R as a course outline rather than a final all
knowing, all teaching, tutorial book I was able to drill to the bottom
of everything that was happening inside my computer.
If you, like me, look for those Eureka! moments in life, you will find
exploring the capabilities of your computer through the 'C' language is
a wonderful voyage of discovery. The ingenuity and creativity over the
last 50 years that has gone into making the metal, the electricity, and
the programming of a computer is truly a marvel.
If this is the kind of approach that you are interested in respond to
this post, and I will give you some hints and tricks about uncovering
the programming process. If I happen to steer you wrong, I am sure
there are lots of people on this list who will jump in with corrections.
I learned C from K&R, from the tutorial that was included with Unix, and
the fact that I was told I had to maintain the Unix CShell. Fortunately
at the time I knew a number of languages including IBM 360/370,
AutoCoder, Burroughs, PDP-8, PDP-11, and Raytheon PTS1200/PTS100
assembly. My real learning experience was looking at the code generated
by COBOL. You can see how some compilers generate the code, but you can
also see how some decisions you make at the high level language affect
the actual code. I was taught that looping through an array by using
pointers was much faster than subscripting through the same array. BUT,
when working with the compiler group on Tru65 Unix I found that
subscripting was actually much faster when using an optimizing compiler
because the compiler must dereference every pointer, but when
subscripting, it can keep the array base in a register. I had some old C
code that I used to first test that pointers are better than
subscripting, and I then tested that in the Tru64 compiler on the Alpha,
and subscripted loops were faster.
Basically, the first rule I always use is to write code clearly and
concisely. Remember that someone (you or someone else) may have to debug
it. If you need to make the code work faster, then is the time to
analyze, and we have some really neat tools like graphical profilers
that can point out bottlenecks, and many times these surprise even the
most experienced programmers.
Basically, the CPU generally does a few things. While there are major
differences, between CISC and RISC, you load an address into a register,
perform some operation on that register, such as add, subtract,
multiply, divide, or, not, and, and a few more. Then you save the
contents into memory. Of course there are branch and conditional branch
where you go to a different part of the code based upon a true or false
condition. To really understand computer logic, an interesting approach
is to build a computer using plugboard parts. Remember, everything in a
computer is binary not decimal, not octal (3 bit representation of
binary), not hexadecimal (4 bit representation).
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
12:16 p.m.
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:28 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:43 PM, William Case
<billlinux(a)rogers.com>
wrote:
Parshwa, Two basic questions: 1) Do you want to use
programming as a way
to understand the inner workings of your computer? Or, 2) Do
you want to
acquire a programming language primarily to have the most
used/useful
programming skills in order to write a program? (at least
useful to
you). Both these objectives may be intertwined, but which is
your
primary goal now? Different goals, different programs.
--
Regards Bill
The primary interest for which the latest software technology has
lured me much is to know about how I can efficiently write the code
(despite of my job of other field) but simultaneously I would be
pleased if the same piece of code and its generation becomes the
reason of knowing how exactly the world of communications is working!
That much of the knowledge I am having that the entire world is
working on '0' and '1' as everything is going to convert to it and
then to electromagnetic signal (for communications) but the only thing
to know at first is how to write the code. Secondary things (at later
stage) would be that how that program is getting converted into a
sting of '0' and '1' which only the computer understands and transmits
through wire (as an EM wave). So at times, and it is the high time,
that despite of the fact I get very less time, this technology has
become a driving force for me that it makes me to think how a code is
working?
I am not a programmer, but I wanted the answer you seem to want. How
does the damn thing work? More explicitly:
How does human understandable information get converted by a machine
into electrical data; then store it; may or may not, transform, compare,
and/or relocate the data; and then re-present the data as information
meaningful to humans?
I found the answer in "The C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan
and Dennis M. Ritchie. This book is such a basic that it is often
referred to just as K&R. If you try to simply use this book as a
tutorial for the C language it is too difficult. Almost every sentence
contains a new concept. But K&R and 'C' are closest to the metal. It's
description and particularly its appendices are used by programmers
mainly as a reference. It really is a text on how to best write code so
that the compiler can use your 'C' code by translating it into machine
language. It is also, therefore, basic instructions for compiler writers
on how they have writer their compilers.
A big however! I found that when I took my time, and worked each new
concept through, with liberal use of google and some tutorial sites,
with some contemplation on my part, with some reference to the the basic
electrical properties of transistors, capacitors, Direct Current and
crystals, I was able to come to a fairly complete (or at least useful)
understanding of how my computer worked and what the text instructions
that I was imputing were doing.
In addition, I spent a couple of afternoons exploring assembly language
and the IS-32 instruction set. Looking at how compilers work, and how
they translate your text code into machine code (the '1' and '0's you
mentioned) from libraries makes the need for precise instructions (text
syntax) clear and less of a burden.
I found that by using K&R as a course outline rather than a final all
knowing, all teaching, tutorial book I was able to drill to the bottom
of everything that was happening inside my computer.
If you, like me, look for those Eureka! moments in life, you will find
exploring the capabilities of your computer through the 'C' language is
a wonderful voyage of discovery. The ingenuity and creativity over the
last 50 years that has gone into making the metal, the electricity, and
the programming of a computer is truly a marvel.
If this is the kind of approach that you are interested in respond to
this post, and I will give you some hints and tricks about uncovering
the programming process. If I happen to steer you wrong, I am sure
there are lots of people on this list who will jump in with corrections.
--
Regards Bill
Fedora 14, Gnome 2.32
Evo.2.32, Emacs 23.2.1
11:07 a.m.
On 12/16/2010 12:02 PM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
hi,
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
programing, which programing language one should start with? In the
ocean of the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one
justify it. Some say Python but again they say it is Perl which is
better every time then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but
again some emphasis to use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB
or COBOL and some say to learn web based programing like HTML, PHP,
ASP.Net. In this ocean who is just starting to learn which one he
should prefer?
Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have
the basic understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like
the CPU. Not to generate the big projects for the management
processes, not even banking system but to know the basic of programing
like how to handle the machines at the first, for that purpose, for
the the scratch level purpose and for the one which is good even for
Linux, what programing language should one like me, initiate?
--
Regards,
Parshwa Murdia
I'm surprised no one has suggested this so far as I've read
so I will,
but if one is really interested in learning about how the hardware works
the most obvious place to start is "assembly" or "machine" language.
You don't actually write machine code but rather, "nenomics" that
correspond to it. For example "MOV" for "move" followed by a source
register and a target register simply loads data from one internal
register of the cpu to another. When you are finished writing your
program in these symbols it has to be "assembled" and "linked", which
ultimately produces an executable file that is loaded into the "code
segment" register of the cpu by the operating system. Of course, it is
very tedious to write a non-trivial program like this. But higher-level
languages like C and Fortran ultimately produce a stream of ones and
zeros that correspond to these instructions, source and target
registers, and data.
Long ago I played with the Microsoft "Macroassembler" or "MASM", which
ran under DOS. I did this long before I learned C (though I had some
prior experience with Fortran and Basic). You may be able to find that
somewhere, or some open and/or free version--possibly for 'nix, or else
Dosemu. It should still work on any x86 cpu, though some of the
instructions probably won't be there.
Then, for an amusing read which may or may not tell you anything about
how a computer works, try Douglas Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher, Bach: an
Eternal Golden Braid".
If there is one key concept it is that a huge number of trivial tasks,
like combining two bits in a NAND gate, can be automated and combined
into a non-trivial one. Programming works the same way: higher-level
instructions like the floating-point product of two numbers are built up
from machine-level instructions, sub-routines functions or classes are
built up from instructions, large programs are built up from these
smaller programs, etc. Hofstadter's analogy of the collective
intelligence of a colony of ants may or may not help you with this.
If I misunderstood and you just want to learn the most useful language,
it would probably be C. Later you could learn C++ and "object-oriented"
concepts. C gives you plenty of opportunity to interact at the
hardware-level, with the ability in principle to write significant
pieces of software like word processors or operating systems. The books
by Deitel and Deitel probably have everything you need to know.
6:48 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 16:52 -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 00:10 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:09 PM, les <hlhowell(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Since C++ is a preprocessor to C, how does it run circles
> around C?
> Just asking.
>
>
> Regards,
> Les H
>
>
>
> Absolutely no idea dude!
There are C++ implementations where C++ is processed to C but the
language it self can have a compiler that does not use C.
--
=======================================================================
Don't everyone thank me at once! -- Han Solo
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
Is that really what happens now with gnu C++? Sorry, just haven't used
it in a while, and when I have it was for some simple C stuff, no
debugging or anything, just a few lines of code thrown together for a
small task.
I thought most of the underlying libraries (stdio stuff, standard math,
order of evaluation stuff and so on were the standard C libraries, just
called from within the C++ code as needed, unless the C++ code
overloaded the functions.
I guess I am really dated now ;-) and I've only been out of the formal
work for about 5 years. I may have to get active again. Maybe C++ has
outgrown some of the things that made me shun it. Is the context
limitation on objects now universal? If an object is created with
inheritance now, does the runtime code contain the associated links with
the object core to link the inherited functions, or is this still a
static table at compile time only?
I have hundreds more questions now, but this is not the thread for them
I think.
Both Java and C++ broke for me due to occasional and unexplained loss of
reference to global objects and associated public functions, resulting
in difficulties building complex programs without some extra files and
linkages in the past and I could not find any explanation of what I
needed to do to make it work, which made me even more prejudiced against
them than I wanted to be.
In one Java class I created a nice little program which required a
linkage of an object and its public functions from one file to another,
but the code wouldn't support it, and neither the instructor nor any one
in the class could find the problem. I still got a good grade in the
class, but not finding and fixing that problem still sticks in my craw
today.
And that is why I do not recommend OO languages for newcomers. If the
instructors cannot make simple code work, then a newbie needs to avoid
that and build some success first before being thrown into that pit.
Regards,
Les H
1:47 a.m.
On 12/18/2010 07:45 AM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Ralf
Corsepius<rc040203(a)freenet.de>wrote:
Exactly. "C" tends to expose many of the low-level details and the
> concepts behind them (e.g. pointers, addresses, registers,
> bit-operations, word-sizes, interfacing with other langu).
>
> That's why I prefer exposing newcomers to these concepts early in their,
> e.g. by choosing "C". Also worth mentioning is them learning and
> understanding the concept of "preprocessing", "compilation" and
at least
> some details of linkage, details which many interpreted languages hide
> away from them.
>
> Ralf
Ok, so C is better according to you.
Depends on how you mean this.
"C" is not the "best programming language", but it's a good choice
as
means to learn.
Ralf
4:31 a.m.
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:54 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On 12/21/2010 01:16 PM, William Case wrote
> I am not a programmer, but I wanted the answer you seem to want. How
> does the damn thing work? More explicitly:
>
> How does human understandable information get converted by a machine
> into electrical data; then store it; may or may not, transform, compare,
> and/or relocate the data; and then re-present the data as information
> meaningful to humans?
>
> I found the answer in "The C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan
> and Dennis M. Ritchie. This book is such a basic that it is often
> referred to just as K&R. If you try to simply use this book as a
> tutorial for the C language it is too difficult. Almost every sentence
> contains a new concept. But K&R and 'C' are closest to the metal.
It's
> description and particularly its appendices are used by programmers
> mainly as a reference. It really is a text on how to best write code so
> that the compiler can use your 'C' code by translating it into machine
> language. It is also, therefore, basic instructions for compiler writers
> on how they have writer their compilers.
>
> A big however! I found that when I took my time, and worked each new
> concept through, with liberal use of google and some tutorial sites,
> with some contemplation on my part, with some reference to the the basic
> electrical properties of transistors, capacitors, Direct Current and
> crystals, I was able to come to a fairly complete (or at least useful)
> understanding of how my computer worked and what the text instructions
> that I was imputing were doing.
>
> In addition, I spent a couple of afternoons exploring assembly language
> and the IS-32 instruction set. Looking at how compilers work, and how
> they translate your text code into machine code (the '1' and '0's
you
> mentioned) from libraries makes the need for precise instructions (text
> syntax) clear and less of a burden.
>
> I found that by using K&R as a course outline rather than a final all
> knowing, all teaching, tutorial book I was able to drill to the bottom
> of everything that was happening inside my computer.
>
> If you, like me, look for those Eureka! moments in life, you will find
> exploring the capabilities of your computer through the 'C' language is
> a wonderful voyage of discovery. The ingenuity and creativity over the
> last 50 years that has gone into making the metal, the electricity, and
> the programming of a computer is truly a marvel.
>
> If this is the kind of approach that you are interested in respond to
> this post, and I will give you some hints and tricks about uncovering
> the programming process. If I happen to steer you wrong, I am sure
> there are lots of people on this list who will jump in with corrections.
>
I learned C from K&R, from the tutorial that was included with Unix, and
the fact that I was told I had to maintain the Unix CShell. Fortunately
at the time I knew a number of languages including IBM 360/370,
AutoCoder, Burroughs, PDP-8, PDP-11, and Raytheon PTS1200/PTS100
assembly. My real learning experience was looking at the code generated
by COBOL. You can see how some compilers generate the code, but you can
also see how some decisions you make at the high level language affect
the actual code. I was taught that looping through an array by using
pointers was much faster than subscripting through the same array. BUT,
when working with the compiler group on Tru65 Unix I found that
subscripting was actually much faster when using an optimizing compiler
because the compiler must dereference every pointer, but when
subscripting, it can keep the array base in a register. I had some old C
code that I used to first test that pointers are better than
subscripting, and I then tested that in the Tru64 compiler on the Alpha,
and subscripted loops were faster.
Basically, the first rule I always use is to write code clearly and
concisely. Remember that someone (you or someone else) may have to debug
it. If you need to make the code work faster, then is the time to
analyze, and we have some really neat tools like graphical profilers
that can point out bottlenecks, and many times these surprise even the
most experienced programmers.
Basically, the CPU generally does a few things. While there are major
differences, between CISC and RISC, you load an address into a register,
perform some operation on that register, such as add, subtract,
multiply, divide, or, not, and, and a few more. Then you save the
contents into memory. Of course there are branch and conditional branch
where you go to a different part of the code based upon a true or false
condition. To really understand computer logic, an interesting approach
is to build a computer using plugboard parts. Remember, everything in a
computer is binary not decimal, not octal (3 bit representation of
binary), not hexadecimal (4 bit representation).
But as I recall, the alpha had some vector extensions and bytecoding
extensions that enabled faster indexing, which is why it ran faster with
indexed arrays ;-)
And as to representation, if you go to assembly language the choice of
octal or hex is often based upon the instruction declination of the
processor. For example the 8080 was octal, because the first 2 bits had
a specific segmentation of the instruction set, the next three could
choose a register or memory and the final three would make a choice
based upon the other two groups.
In the 6800 and later motorola processors, the representation was hex,
reflecting a broader register base and larger instruction flexibility.
Now that we have 64 bit processors, and multiple cores, the next step
will be a supervisor for the cores and then a new partitioning of the
instruction word, and I expect a new notation, probably 64 base of some
kind, because it will reflect the new reality of the core processors and
their inherent capabilities.
Regards,
Les H
2:14 p.m.
Parshwa Murdia wrote:
hi,
If one has to start from the scratch, from the zeroth level to do the
programing, which programing language one should start with? In the
ocean of the languages, to start with is really very typical. Can one
justify it. Some say Python but again they say it is Perl which is
better every time then the Python. Some say to start with C or C++ but
again some emphasis to use Java or C#. Many say to go for .Net and VB or
COBOL and some say to learn web based programing like HTML, PHP,
ASP.Net. In this ocean who is just starting to learn which one he should
prefer?
Many say that what is the purpose of learning, then I say that to have
the basic understanding of how exactly we can handle the machines like
the CPU. Not to generate the big projects for the management processes,
not even banking system but to know the basic of programing like how to
handle the machines at the first, for that purpose, for the the scratch
level purpose and for the one which is good even for Linux, what
programing language should one like me, initiate?
The first thing you need to understand is that a programming language is a
*tool*, and after four decades of programming I can tell you that choosing the
right tool makes the job vastly easier. C is great for operating systems and
tools and has good data types, perl is an example of a language without types,
and can do strings and light networking stuff quite well. In general assembler
is so seldom used that other than (maybe) device drivers, device drivers, test
software, and similar you can skip it.
Beware learning one "best" language, if you only have a hammer everything has to
be a nail. Currently I think C++ is most likely to have fanboys who think it
does everything, but there are lots of others, and when someone says "there's a
trick for that," it often means the language doesn't provide an obvious tool to
do what you want.
Since you asked, one language: perl, three: add C and javascript. Read some
FORTRAN and COBOL programs to see how they work, you don't need to write for
them. I never found Ada to be the best tool for anything, although I wrote about
5k lines of it one year because a contract required it. Who better than a
political science major with an MBA to pick programming languages?
Good luck.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
11:11 a.m.
Go with C++, easiest jump to every language. The reverse is not true
for any other language.
On 12/17/10, Patrick Kobly <patrick(a)kobly.com> wrote:
On 12/17/2010 5:14 AM, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Toxico Nimbus <ToxN(a)free.fr
> <mailto:ToxN@free.fr>> wrote:
>
> - Don't use something you couldn't create yourself
> Toxico Nimbus
>
>
>
> How you imagine could a beginner create something which he is trying
> to learn? Could you do that by the time you started learning?
>
I suspect Toxico is speaking about a particular challenge that has come
up with educators teaching particularly OO languages as first
languages. Specifically, because of the strong encapsulation and data
hiding techniques present in these languages, a wide ecosystem of
reusable class libraries has surrounded them - to the point where
programming in these languages is often seen as an integration effort -
trying to integrate a series of class libraries. As a result, a certain
segment of the programming community has lost understanding of huge
swaths of the practice - particularly foundational algorithms - such as
searching and sorting algs - because learning programmers just use
rather than implement.
When you are reusing code (like a sorting or search algorithm, or a hash
tree class in Java), think about whether you understand (at least in
basic terms) how that code is likely implemented. If you were given the
task of implementing a hash table (because java.util.HashMap was
unavailable to you), would you be able to? Would you know where to
start? Would you be able to describe the performance characteristics of
a search, insert or delete using this structure? These are important
questions that you should learn to answer...
PK
--
Sent from my mobile device
4904
days inactive
4914
days old
166 comments
37 participants
participants (37)
-
Aaron Konstam -
Andras Simon -
Andrew Haley -
Antonio Olivares -
Barry -
Bill Case -
Bill Davidsen -
Bob Marcan -
Cameron Simpson -
Carroll Grigsby -
Chris Adams -
Colin Paul Adams -
David Liguori -
Frank Cox -
Howard Howell -
James McKenzie -
Jerry Feldman -
Joe Zeff -
John Haxby -
Marko Vojinovic -
Marvin Kosmal -
Matt Smith -
Matthew Saltzman -
Michael D. Setzer II -
Michael Hennebry -
n2xssvv.g02gfr12930 -
NoSpaze -
Parshwa Murdia -
Patrick Kobly -
Ralf Corsepius -
Ranjan Maitra -
Rick Stevens -
Robert Myers -
Susi Lehtola -
Tim -
Tom Horsley -
Toxico Nimbus