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
[email protected]
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/lssconf-discuss
