[email protected] wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Jim Dougherty <[ mailto:j_dougherty%40ecrm.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is nutty (advising Kavina to quit college and find another skool because > the teacher has them using a real old compiler). > > Well the course is certainly not teaching them C or C++ as used in > industry, and therefore not preparing them for a career in > programming. Indeed, if they're actually paying for the course, it's > money wasted. > > It's not as if there aren't inexpensive/free alternatives that would > achieve the required goal of being able to participate in a workplace > that does use C and C++. >
I may be mis-speaking because I know nothing about TurboC. I am making the assumption that it is a real old C compiler and that back in the day it was a representative C compiler. If it was not a representative C compiler but rather something that had it's own brand of bastardized C then I will drop my argument. Many of us learned C on very old compilers many years ago (early 80's in my case) and have adapted to changes in the language since. There is no reason that someone still cannot learn the basics of the language using a very old compiler and later adapt going forward. Generally speaking the nature of changes over the years has been to add features not to change or remove features. I would not advise using a very old compiler if you have a reasonable choice but I think it bad advise to suggest that someone quit college because the teacher mandates the use of an old compiler. If Kavina has gotten the impression that can not learn how think like a programmer and write C and he needs to quit school and find another then he has been given the wrong impression. I think that the group welcome message expresses things well when it says that TurboC is outdated and some people will not offer help if you are using and you would do well to upgrade if possible.
