Exactly Dustin and Ray! I've even used those exact words ("Hey, it's just
another programming language"). However, I've noticed that comp. sci.
departments are starting to push specific languages. In my opinion, when a
department pushes a specific language, the students don't graduate as
"language bigots" they just usually have no clue that there is more than one
way to do something, or why some things are done a certain way.
An example:
The two data structure classes at USL (before it was ULL) were probably the
most important classes I ever took. I've spoken with people who took them
after they started using the C++ language in those classes and it's just sad
in my opinion what happened (granted, the language shift occurred around the
same time as the classes became mandatory for BSAT majors so that may have
had something to do with it also).
When I took these classes they were taught in Modula-2, the classes went
something like:
1) lecture: here's how [structure X] works, assignment: write a [structure
X] module
2) lecture: here's some examples of using [structure X], assignment: here's
a problem, use *YOUR* [structure X] module to solve it.
The people I spoke with said the classes now go:
1) lecture: here's a [structure X] class, there are [Y methods] on it,
assignment: here's a problem, use *THIS* [structure X] class to solve it.
It's like they're pushing the OO aspects of C++. The people taking these
classes have almost no clue as to how the structures actually work, they
just know that [structure X] class has [Y methods], not to mention that they
don't understand that there can be multiple implementations of [structure X]
each with there own pros/cons.
Makes for interesting project designs - at the last company I was at we
would put one "old school" programmer with about 3 new graduates. We didn't
do this totally because of the experience, we just learned that the newer
graduates had never had to think of a problem from the "inside out" and
would end up forcing a design to fit the language they were familiar with
(even if they weren't using that language) instead of using the structures
the project actually called for.
I'm rambling but my point is we took these classes in a "dead" language and
could apply anything we learned to whatever language was at hand because our
focus was on the structures and not the language. If we wanted to learn a
specific language we could either do it on our own time or take a 1 credit
elective. The book from my structure class (Walls and Mirrors, Intermediate
Problem Solving and Data Structures - Modula-2 Edition) is even one of the
only three I kept from my college career (the other two being "Database
Fundamentals" and "Deduction" - again non-language specific books).
Man, I must be bored to go on this long...
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of -ray
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 11:42 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [brlug-general] 4 year degrees and IT positions
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Dustin Puryear wrote:
>
> > P.S. I've found that people without degrees tend to be programming
> language
> > bigots far more often than those with degrees. One of the nice things
> about
> > most computer science graduates is that attitude of "Hey, it's just
> another
> > language."
>
> Haha now *that* thought came right out of my head. I argued with a lot of
> people, some profs, when our CS dept changed from teaching Pascal, to C++,
> then to java. I said it doesn't matter. You're not learning a language.
> You're learning how to program. Any language. That can be taught with
> any high-level language. After you know the fundamentals, you should be
> able to pick up any language in a few hours. Granted, it'll take much
> longer than that to master.
>
> ray
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
