On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Luke Kanies wrote:

> >> I have advised many people beginning with automation to start
> >> with scripts, evolve into using cfengine, and then evolve into
> >> using bcfg2 or puppet, *knowing* that each intermediate step
> >> is a "throw-away". The intermediate steps are "educational".
> > 
> > this sounds like a good idea.
> 
> Do you advise programmers to start with machine language, then move on 
> to assembly, and only then start using high-level languages?  Or do you 
> skip all of that crap and go right to the languages that are useful?
> 
> I've never heard it recommended that beginning programmers spend a 
> couple of years writing assembly and then work their way up to C, and 
> then maybe start using Java or Ruby when they've been at it for a 
> decide; it's just silly.  Yeah, it's a good idea to understand what's 
> under your high-level language, but do you really expect incompetent 
> people to start with assembly and then work their way up the stack?

        ...but how about if they already *know* assembly, and they have little 
time?  They might want to put in the effort to learn C, but C++ is too hard 
(pure virtual templates?  I don't know what they are, but it sounds like a 
C++ thing :) ).  

assembly = basic bash (ie. no loops or conditionals)
scripts = bash/perl/whatever
cfengine = ???
puppet = C++ (but better, I hope :) )


---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Name: Tim Nelson                 | Because the Creator is,        |
| E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I am                           |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version 3.12
GCS d+++ s+: a- C++$ U+++$ P+++$ L+++ E- W+ N+ w--- V- 
PE(+) Y+>++ PGP->+++ R(+) !tv b++ DI++++ D G+ e++>++++ h! y-
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

_______________________________________________
lssconf-discuss mailing list
lssconf-discuss@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/lssconf-discuss

Reply via email to