On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 08:55:56AM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Sun, 7 May 2000, Jeff Stuart wrote:
>
> > [...rest of message deleted...]
> > > Every language has it use, the truly knowledgeable understand when to
> > > use each language:)
> >
> > > Sam
> > Amen to that!!! I think that this point and the point about writing GOOD
> > algorithms are VERY important ones and I think that it's important that this
> > be taught! I'm not sure if it's being taught now in school but in my day
> > (GOD I sound old :)) (1987-1991) it wasn't.
>
> I hear this very much depends what Uni you go to. I'm always surprised to
> hear that people _don't_ just learn pure algorithms and techniques at Uni
> - that's certainly all that appears to be taught here in the UK
> (learning languages has to be done on your own time generally, even ones
> that are a core part of your course).
I think it depends a lot on the school you go to and the professors
you get. I was a Math/Econ major with a tack on of PIC, program in
computing at UCLA. For the most part the teachers were idiots, they
didn't even know what open source was much less get into it in class.
They didn't teach algorithms, they thought it was good enough to teach
the "end all be all" of object orientation. In my experience, good
algorithm training that *used* to be present has been replaced with
object orientation as a "replacement" for good algorithms. This is
basically retarded. (I don't mean to be obtuse, but those are the
facts as I see them) (It's been a few years, maybe they teach OSS in
class now)
For GUI programming, I think a "beautiful" object design is
exceptionally important. But once you leave the GUI space, you've
left the area where "beautiful" object designs add much benefit. Most
of us programmers are relagated to things that are less beautiful, but
rather functional. Functional things require good algorithms. Things
with bad algorithms just become messy, and non functional after a
period of time. (Let me note that I am not speaking of
"function/procedural" languages, just the task it must accomplish:
pretty vs. do the job)
My point is simple. Object orientation is not a replacement for good
algorithms. It's supplemental to good algorithms, and indeed
sometimes crufty/beautiful Object interfaces can get in the way of good
algorithms. (OO interfaces sometimes make Nazi designers out of the
best of us..., we allow our sense of design to get in the way of our
sense of algorithms.)
Allright, well, I'm done ranting about languages, sorry to bring you
along for the trip :-).
Thanks,
Shane.
(Let me make a quick note: I had two good professors. Dr. Kirby, and
one other fellow I can't remember the name now..., hey! it's been a
while! :)
