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