It's easy to say that "Design (decomposition and distribution of knowledge and behavior), not programming language, is the real key - proper design makes the coding almost trivial. "
It's a lot harder to describe how to teach design. Furthermore, no matter how one teaches design, one will be using a language to express it. That language, whether actually executable or not, is a programming language. Furthermore, it matter which design constructs the language supports. If it doesn't support objects, or parallelism, or functions as first class entities, or constraints, or types, or logical declarations, or message passing, or any of anyone's other favorite architectural or design concepts, one will be very hard pressed to express a design that uses those concepts, and even harder pressed to teach those concepts to undergraduates. In general, I don't believe that what one thinks is limited by the language one uses. But in software for most people, that probably is the case. -- Russ On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Grant Holland <[email protected]>wrote: > Design (decomposition and distribution of knowledge and behavior), not > programming language, is the real key - proper design makes the coding > almost trivial.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
