On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:27:46 -0400, rumours say that Roy Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] might have written:
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hehehe... a large python string is a nice idea for modelling
memory.
Actually, a Python string is only good for modelling ROM. If you want to
model
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:29:49 +0100, rumours say that Tom Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] might have written:
At one point, a friend and i founded a university to give our recreational
random hackery a bit more credibility (well, we called ourself a
university, anyway; it was mostly a joke). We
Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou wrote:
and then, apart from t-shirts, the PSF could sell Python-branded
shampoos named poetry in lotion etc.
Which will once and for all solve the dandruffs problem prevalent among the
snake community these days.
Not funny? know then that German has one term for
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:46:01 +0300, rumours say that Christos TZOTZIOY
Georgiou [EMAIL PROTECTED] might have written:
(kudos to Steve Holden for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] where the term PIPO
(Poetry In, Poetry Out) could be born)
oops! kudos to Michael Spencer (I never saw Michael's message on my
Peter Otten wrote:
Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou wrote:
and then, apart from t-shirts, the PSF could sell Python-branded
shampoos named poetry in lotion etc.
Which will once and for all solve the dandruffs problem prevalent among the
snake community these days.
And once again the Pythonistas
Andrea Griffini wrote:
Indeed when talking about if learning C can hinder
or help learning C++ I remember thinking that to
learn C++ *superficially* learning C first is
surely pointless or can even hinder.
But to learn C++ deeply (with all its quirks) I
think that learning C first helps.
I
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:40:42 -0500, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, you didn't do the translation right.
Whoops.
So you know assembler, no other possibility as it's such
a complex language that unless someone already knows it
(and in
Andrew Dalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrea Griffini wrote:
Wow... I always get surprises from physics. For example I
thought that no one could drop confutability requirement
for a theory in an experimental science...
Some physicists (often mathematical physicists) propose
alternate
Claudio Grondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What has it all to do with Python? To be not fully off-topic, I
suggest here, that it is much easier to discuss programming
related matters (especially in case of Python :-) or mathematics
than any other subjects related to nature, because
Peter Hansen wrote:
D H wrote:
So you say he has done relatively little serious development and
that he may not even know about Python. I didn't see any evidence
from those pages to draw either conclusion. In fact the 4th paragraph
quite contradicts them both.
Clearly this is a
On 17 Jun 2005 21:10:37 -0700, Michele Simionato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea Griffini wrote:
Why hinder ?
...
To be able to content himself with a shallow knowledge
is a useful skill ;)
Ah! ... I agree. Currently for example my knowledge
of Zope is pretty close to 0.00%, but I'm using it
Your position reminds me of this:
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html
Michele Simionato
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 18 Jun 2005 00:26:04 -0700, Michele Simionato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your position reminds me of this:
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html
Yeah, but as I said I didn't use a TRS-80, but an
Apple ][. But the years were those ;-)
Andrea
--
D H wrote:
Peter Hansen wrote:
With respect to the author, and an understanding that there is
probably much that didn't go into his self-description (add
about.htm to the above URL), it sounds as though he knows primarily,
perhaps solely, C and C++, and has done relatively little serious
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:30:04 -0400, Jeffrey Maitland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also I think the fact that you think your were diteriating just goes to show
how dedicated you are to detail, and making sure you give the right advice
or ask the right question.
[totally-OT]
Not really,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:36:18 -0400, Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That strings in python are immutable it's surely
just a detail, and it's implementation specific,
but this doesn't means it's not something you can
ignore for a while.
I disagree.
Andrea Griffini:
I also must note that I, as a fourteen, found terribly
interesting the idea of programming a computer even
if the only things I could do were for example turning
on and off pixels (blocks?) on a screen with resolution
40x50. Probably nowdays unless you show them an
I always thought about our intellect being something superior
to this world made of fragile bones and stinking flesh.
However I realized that there's probably no real magic in
it... knowing there are pills to make you happy is sort of
shocking from a philosophical point of view :-)
Yes it
On 17 Jun 2005 01:25:29 -0700, Michele Simionato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think anything significant changed in the percentages.
Then why starting from
print Hello world
that can't be explained (to say better it can't be
*really* understood) without introducing a huge
amount of
I fail to see the relationship between your reply and my original
message.
I was complaining about the illusion that in the old time people were
more
interested in programming than now. Instead your reply is about low
level
languages being more suitable for beginners than high level languages.
I
Andrea Griffini wrote:
Is C++ a good first programming language ?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D
But apparently some guru I greatly respect thinks so
(I'm not kidding, http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/).
With respect to the author, and an understanding that there is probably
much that didn't go
there is a 1% of people extremely interested in turning
on or off a pixel
I taught adults aged from 16 to 86 for some years
a course Introduction to data processing, where I had
tried to teach the basics beginning with switching light
on and off. Having around twenty participants I
experienced
Claudio Grondi:
I am personally biased towards trying to understand
anything as deep as possible and in the past was quite
certain, that one can not achieve good results
without a deep insight into the underlying details.
I have now to admit, that I was just wrong. From my
overall experience I
Peter Hansen wrote:
But apparently some guru I greatly respect thinks so
(I'm not kidding, http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/).
With respect to the author, and an understanding that there is probably
much that didn't go into his self-description (add about.htm to the
above URL), it
On 17 Jun 2005 05:30:25 -0700, Michele Simionato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fail to see the relationship between your reply and my original
message.
I was complaining about the illusion that in the old time people were
more
interested in programming than now. Instead your reply is about low
level
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:40:47 -0400, Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And the fact that he's teaching C++ instead of just C seems to go
against your own theories anyway... (though I realize you weren't
necessarily putting him forth as a support for your position).
He's strongly advocating
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add to the picture the quality of [C++] compile time error messages
from the primitive template technology and even compile time errors
often look like riddles;
Yeah, but what they lack in quality, they make up for in quantity.
if you forget a const
On 17 Jun 2005 06:35:58 -0700, Michele Simionato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Claudio Grondi:
...
From my
overall experience I infer, that it is not only possible
but has sometimes even better chances for success,
because one is not overloaded with the ballast of deep
understanding which can not only
Andrea Griffini wrote:
Why hinder ?
Suppose you have to accomplish a given task using a framework
which is unknown to you. The manual is 1000 pages long.
In order to get the job done, it is enough to study 50 pages
of it. There are people with the ability to figure out very
quickly which are the
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:49:27 +0200, Peter Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Depends if you wanna build or investigate.
Learning is investigating.
Yeah, after thinking to this phrase I've to agree.
Sometimes learning is investigating, sometimes it's
building. Since I discovered programming I've
Andrea Griffini wrote:
That strings in python are immutable it's surely
just a detail, and it's implementation specific,
but this doesn't means it's not something you can
ignore for a while. If you use python this is a
*fundamental* property.
My communication ability is dropping every day
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That strings in python are immutable it's surely
just a detail, and it's implementation specific,
but this doesn't means it's not something you can
ignore for a while.
I disagree. It is indeed something you can ignore for a while. The first
program
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Terry Hancock wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 08:12 am, Magnus Lycka wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's a bit late to try to rename the Computer
Science discipline now.
Computer programming is a trade skill, not a science. It's like
being a machinist or a carpenter --- a
My communication ability is dropping every day at
Probably no reason to worry. Reading your post I haven't
even noticed the unnecessary not, because the message
was clear as intended even with it, anyway.
Should I start to be seriously in doubt about own
physiological problems only because
Well as for the communication skills dropping. I highly doubt that, if
anything you are just picking up on things you never noticed before (and
your communication skills far surpass the average person that writes
anything in todays' society).
A good example for me is that I am noticing that I
Also I think the fact that you think your were diteriating just goes to
show [...]
should be probably:
In my opinion the fact that you consider you were deteriorating just
shows [...]
but it can be understood as it is anyway, right?
Written maybe exactly as it is, with the only purpose:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:40:42 -0500, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, you didn't do the translation right.
Whoops.
So you know assembler, no other possibility as it's such
a complex language that unless someone already knows it
(and in the specific architecture) what i wrote is pure
line
Magnus Lycka schrieb:
Peter Maas wrote:
Learning is investigating. By top-down I mean high level (cat,
dog, table sun, sky) to low level (molecules, atoms, fields ...).
Aha. So you must learn cosmology first then. I don't think so. ;)
I wasn't talking about size but about sensual
If you're thinking of things like superstrings, loop quantum gravity
and other theories of everything then your friend has gotten
confused somewhere. There is certainly no current experiments which we
can do in practise, which is widely acknowledged as a flaw. Lots of
physicists are trying to work
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:27:19 +0100, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're thinking of things like superstrings, loop quantum gravity
and other theories of everything then your friend has gotten
confused somewhere.
More likely I was the one that didn't understand. Reading
what wikipedia tells
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
High and low tides aren't caused by the moon.
They're not???
Nope. They are mostly caused by the continents. If the
Earth was completely covered by ocean, the difference
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 02:12 pm, Andrew Dalke wrote:
Teaching kids is different than teaching adults. The
latter can often take bigger steps and start from a
sound understanding of logical and intuitive thought.
Simple for an adult is different than for a child.
Of course, since children
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 10:21 am, Scott David Daniels wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's a bit late to try to rename the Computer
Science discipline now.
The best I've heard is Informatics -- I have a vague impression
that this is a more European name for the field.
It's the reverse-translation
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 08:12 am, Magnus Lycka wrote:
Oh well, I guess it's a bit late to try to rename the Computer
Science discipline now.
Computer programming is a trade skill, not a science. It's like
being a machinist or a carpenter --- a practical art.
Unfortunately, our society has a
Yes, both the sun and the moon have gravitational fields which affect
tides. But the moon's gravitational field is much stronger than the
sun's,
so as a first-order approximation, we can ignore the sun.
Here we are experiencing further small lie which found its way
into a text written by an
Terry Hancock ha scritto:
It's the reverse-translation from the French Informatique.
Or maybe the italian Informatica...
--
Renato
Usi Fedora? Fai un salto da noi:
http://www.fedoraitalia.org
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oh well, I guess it's a bit late to try to rename the Computer
Science discipline now.
The best I've heard is Informatics -- I have a vague impression
that this is a more European name for the field.
The word Informatics had been invented by a Soviet computer scientist
Andrey Ershov
Terry Hancock wrote:
Of course, since children are vastly better at learning
than adults, perhaps adults are stupid to do this. ;-)
Take learning a language. I'm learning Swedish. I'll
never have a native accent and 6 year olds know more
of the language than I do. But I make much more
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:33:50 -0500, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this same logic applies to why you want to teach abstract things
before concrete things. Since you like concrete examples, let's look
at a simple one:
a = b + c
...
In a very
few languages (BCPL being one), this
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:19:19 -0500, D H [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The best race driver doesn't necessarily know the most about their car's
engine. The best baseball pitcher isn't the one who should be teaching
a class in physics and aerodynamics. Yes, both can improve their
abilities by
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 04:18:06 GMT, Andrew Dalke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In programming you're often given a result (an inventory
management system) and you're looking for a solution which
combines models of how people, computers, and the given domain work.
Yes, at this higher level I agree. But
Andrea Griffini wrote:
This is investigating. Programming is more similar to building
instead (with a very few exceptions). CS is not like physics or
chemistry or biology where you're given a result (the world)
and you're looking for the unknown laws. In programming *we*
are building the world.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:02:29AM +, Andrea Griffini wrote:
However I do not think that going this low (that's is still
IMO just a bit below assembler and still quite higher than
HW design) is very common for programmers.
Well, at least one University (Technical University Vienna) does it
Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:02:29AM +, Andrea Griffini wrote:
Caching is indeed very important, and sometimes the difference
is huge.
...
Easy Question:
You've got 2 programs that are running in parallel.
Without basic knowledge about caches, the naive answer
Andrea Griffini schrieb:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:35:00 +0200, Peter Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think Peter is right. Proceeding top-down is the natural way of
learning.
Depends if you wanna build or investigate.
Learning is investigating. By top-down I mean high level (cat,
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
High and low tides aren't caused by the moon.
They're not???
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Roy Smith wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
High and low tides aren't caused by the moon.
They're not???
Probably he's referring to something like this, from Wikipedia, which
emphasizes that while tides are caused primarily by the moon, the height
of the high and low tides
High and low tides aren't caused by the moon.
They're not???
I suppose, that the trick here is to state,
that not the moon, but the earth rotation relative
to the moon causes it, so putting the moon at
cause is considered wrong, because its existance
alone were not the cause for high and low
On 6/14/05, Magnus Lycka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Dalke wrote:
Andrea Griffini wrote:
This is investigating. Programming is more similar to building
instead (with a very few exceptions). CS is not like physics or
chemistry or biology where you're given a result (the world)
and
Magnus Lycka:
While scientists do build and create things,
the ultimate goal of science is understanding. Scientists build
so that they can learn. Programmers and engineers learn so that
they can build.
Well put! I am going to add this to my list of citations :)
Michele
Scott David Daniels wrote:
Magnus Lycka wrote:
It seems to me that *real* computer scientists are very rare.
I suspect the analysis of algorithms people are among that group.
It is intriguing to me when you can determine a lower and upper
bound on the time for the best solution to a
Peter Maas wrote:
Learning is investigating. By top-down I mean high level (cat,
dog, table sun, sky) to low level (molecules, atoms, fields ...).
Aha. So you must learn cosmology first then. I don't think so. ;)
I don't know if you really think that you learn things top
down, but I doubt that
Peter Maas wrote:
Yes, but what did you notice first when you were a child - plants
or molecules? I imagine little Andrew in the kindergarten fascinated
by molecules and suddenly shouting Hey, we can make plants out of
these little thingies! ;)
One of the first science books that really
On 14 Jun 2005 00:37:00 -0700, Michele Simionato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like you do not have a background in Physics research.
We *do* build the world! ;)
Michele Simionato
Wow... I always get surprises from physics. For example I
thought that no one could drop
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:33:50 -0500, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this same logic applies to why you want to teach abstract things
before concrete things. Since you like concrete examples, let's look
at a simple one:
a = b + c
...
nIn a
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never seen someone explain why, for instance, string addition is
O(n^2) beyond the very abstract it creates a new string with each
addition. No concrete details at all.
I took a shot at that very question a while ago. Elephants never forget,
and
Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never seen someone explain why, for instance, string addition is
O(n^2) beyond the very abstract it creates a new string with each
addition. No concrete details at all.
I took a shot at that very question a while
Andrea Griffini wrote:
Wow... I always get surprises from physics. For example I
thought that no one could drop confutability requirement
for a theory in an experimental science...
Some physicists (often mathematical physicists) propose
alternate worlds because the math is interesting.
There
Andrea Griffini:
Wow... I always get surprises from physics. For example I
thought that no one could drop confutability requirement
for a theory in an experimental science... I mean that I
always agreed with the logic principle that unless you
tell me an experiment whose result could be a
Roy Smith wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
High and low tides aren't caused by the moon.
They're not???
Nope. They are mostly caused by the continents. If the
Earth was completely covered by ocean, the difference
between high and low tide would be about 10-14 inches.
Peter Hansen wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
High and low tides aren't caused by the moon.
They're not???
Probably he's referring to something like this, from Wikipedia, which
emphasizes that while tides are caused primarily by the moon, the height
Andrea Griffini wrote:
A friend of mine however told me that this principle that
I thought was fundamental for talking about science has
indeed been sacrified to get unification. I was told that
in physics there are current theories for which there
is no hypotetical experiment that could
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 20:22:28 -0400, Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How far down do you have to go? What makes bytes of memory, data busses,
and CPUs the right level of abstraction?
They're things that can be IMO genuinely accept
as obvious. Even counting is not the lowest
level in
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:53:29 -0500, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:52:57 -0400, Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Also concrete-abstract shows a clear path; starting
in the middle and looking both up (to higher
They're things that can be IMO genuinely accept
as obvious. Even counting is not the lowest
level in mathematic... there is the mathematic
philosohy direction.
I am personally highly interested in become
aware of the very bottom, the fundaments
all our knownledge is build on.
Trying to answer
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:52:12 -0400, Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm curious how you learned to program.
An HP RPN calculator, later TI-57. Later Apple ][.
With Apple ][ after about one afternoon spent typing
in a basic program from a magazine I gave up with
basic and started with 6502
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 20:22:28 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
At some point, you need to draw a line in the sand (so to speak) and say,
I understand everything down to *here* and can do cool stuff with that
knowledge. Below that, I'm willing to take on faith. I suspect you would
agree that's
Andrea Griffini wrote:
I think that if you don't understand memory,
addresses and allocation and deallocation, or
(roughly) how an hard disk works and what's
the difference between hard disks and RAM then
you're going to be a horrible programmer.
There's no way you will remember what is
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In short, you're going to start in the middle.
I've got bad news for you. You're always in the
middle :-D.
That's what I just said.
Is it really justified to confuse them all
by introducing what are really extraneous details early on?
I simply say
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:13:13AM +, Andrea Griffini wrote:
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you're arguing that a CS major should start by learning electronics
fundamentals, how gates work, and how to design hardware(*)? Because
that's what the concrete level *really* is.
Andrea Griffini schrieb:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:52:57 -0400, Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think new CS students have more than enough to learn with their
*first* language without having to discover the trials and tribulations
of memory management (or those other things that
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Roy Smith wrote:
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that for a programmer skipping the understanding of the
implementation is just impossible: if you don't understand how a
computer works you're going to write pretty silly programs. Note that
I'm not
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Peter Hansen wrote:
Andrea Griffini wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:52:57 -0400, Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think new CS students have more than enough to learn with their
*first* language without having to discover the trials and
tribulations of memory
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Andrea Griffini wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 20:22:28 -0400, Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also concrete-abstract shows a clear path; starting in the middle and
looking both up (to higher abstractions) and down (to the
implementation details) is IMO much more
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no way you will remember what is O(n),
what O(1) and what is O(log(n)) among containers
unless you roughly understand how it works.
People were thinking about algorithmic complexity before there was random
access memory. Back in the unit
Le Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:53:03 -0400, Roy Smith a écrit :
Python let's you concentrate on the real universal
fundamentals of data structures, algorithms, and control flow without
getting bogged down in details.
+1 QOTW
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Roy Smith wrote:
O(2) behavior
Um ...
Lisp, of course, expanded my mind in ways that only Lisp can (the same
could be said for many things I tried back in those days).
Surely you're not saying you experimented with ... APL?
I think it's probably just as important for
On Monday 13 June 2005 12:55 am, Andrea Griffini wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 20:22:28 -0400, Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How far down do you have to go? What makes bytes of memory, data busses,
and CPUs the right level of abstraction?
They're things that can be IMO genuinely accept
there should be no room for magic in a computer
for a professional programmer.
well put. sounds like the makings of a good signature...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
So you're arguing that a CS major should start by learning electronics
fundamentals, how gates work, and how to design hardware(*)? Because
that's what the concrete level *really* is. Start anywhere above that,
and you wind up needing to look both ways.
Some very good schools still believe
I don't buy that. I think there's a world of difference between knowing
what something does and how it does it; a black-box view of the memory
system (allocation + GC) is perfectly sufficient as a basis for
programming using it. That black-box view should include some idea of how
long the
Andrea Griffini a écrit :
(snip)
What I know is that every single competent programmer
I know (not many... just *EVERY SINGLE ONE*) started
by placing firmly concrete concepts first, and then
moved on higher abstractions (for example like
structured programming, OOP, functional languages
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Philippe C. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're arguing that a CS major should start by learning electronics
fundamentals, how gates work, and how to design hardware(*)? Because
that's what the concrete level *really* is. Start anywhere above that,
and you
Peter Maas wrote:
I think Peter is right. Proceeding top-down is the natural way of
learning (first learn about plants, then proceed to cells, molecules,
atoms and elementary particles).
Why in the world is that way natural? I could see how biology
could start from molecular biology - how
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:22:55 +0200, Andreas Kostyrka
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep. Probably. Without a basic understanding of hardware design, one cannot
many of todays artifacts: Like longer pipelines and what does this
mean to the relative performance of different solutions.
I think that
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hehehe... a large python string is a nice idea for modelling
memory.
Actually, a Python string is only good for modelling ROM. If you want to
model read-write memory, you need a Python list.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:35:00 +0200, Peter Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think Peter is right. Proceeding top-down is the natural way of
learning.
Depends if you wanna build or investigate.
To build top down is the wrong approach (basically because
there's no top). Top down is however great
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:54:53 -0500, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In short, you're going to start in the middle.
I've got bad news for you. You're always in the
middle :-D.
That's what I just said.
Yeah. I should stop replying before breakfast.
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:23:39 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Being familiar with
fondamental *programming* concepts like vars, branching, looping and
functions proved to be helpful when learning C, since I only had then to
focus on pointers and memory management.
If you're
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:54:53 -0500, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea Griffini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree. If you're going to make competent programmers of them,
they need to know the *cost* of those details, but not necessarily the
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
