>ang labo mo daming gusto. first, you speak of learning curve. then you
speak
>of not being endeared to graphicals IDEs. what next?
My point is that the learning curve is actually steeper if you use
an IDE! You program may compile and work fine. But you are completely
unaware of 90% what the IDE does for you. When something goes
wrong, you have to go on a witch hunt to figure out what it is the
IDE was doing behind the scenes. When you compile your helloworld
app, are you actually aware of all the switches and libs that get
compiled along with it?
I find that starting out with stuff like:
gcc helloworld.c -mwindows -lwinmm
or
cl helloworld.c user32.lib gdi32.lib winmm.lib
presents a far gentler learning curve to the novice than using
an IDE wizard and then later having to face a mass of IDE options
which you will only be guessing the meanings of and turning on
and off randomly to get your program to compile properly. IDEs
should be for experts who already know what all the options do!
Training novices to use wizard-generated code as a crutch
to avoid learning the nitty-gritty details is a sure-fire way
of breeding incompetent programmers. Again, these are more suited
for use by experts who already understand the generated code
and use the wizard to minimize tedious typing.
> M$ makes good non-graphical IDEs. hay.
Which M$ 'good non-graphical IDE' are you referring to?
Visual Studio is GUI-based and thus graphical. The Borland
C++ 3.1 IDE, even though it works in text mode, also counts as
'graphical' for me, because it uses WIMP.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
