En un mensaje anterior, Blue Boar escribió:
Fernando Schapachnik wrote:
I smell a discusion going nowhere. What is the point of teaching a
languague?
Teach them to program in a paradigm (better, in all of them, and give them
the
tools to make educated choices about which is better for each
-Original Message-
From: Crispin Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 July 2004 04:27
To: Peter Amey
Cc: ljknews; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Education and security -- another perspective (was
ACM Queue - Content)
Peter Amey wrote:
What is wrong
Peter Amey wrote:
What is wrong with this picture ?
I see both of you willing to mandate the teaching of C and yet not
mandate the teaching of any of Ada, Pascal, PL/I etc.
Makes sense to me. what is the point of teaching dead languages like
Ada, Pascal, and PL/I? Teach C, Assembler, and
Peter Amey wrote:
Firstly a tactical one: Ada is by no means a dead language. There is a great tendency in our industry to
regard whatever is in first place at any particular point in life's race to be the winner and
everything else to be dead.
Ada was pushed hard enough by the DoD for a decade
Crispin Cowan wrote:
In programming language terms, Ada is grossly primitive. Its object
orientation mechanisms are crude at best. A *great* deal of progress in
language technology has been made since Ada was developed. For just
about any kind of concept or safety feature, students and
David Crocker wrote...
There is a tendency to regard every programming problem as an
O-O problem. Sometime last year I read a thread on some
programming newsgroup in which contributors argued about the
correct way to write a truly O-O Hello world program. All
the solutions provided were
At 2:26 PM +0100 7/9/04, David Crocker wrote:
And much as I dislike Ada, I have to admit that if you don't
intend to use dynamic binding and don't need the low-level features of C,...
Which are those low-level features not available with Ada ?
The C compilers I have used claim to be
I see both of you willing to mandate the teaching of C and yet not
mandate the teaching of any of Ada, Pascal, PL/I etc.
This seems like the teaching of making do.
And is not making do an important skill?
More seriously, as long as Unix variants maintain their position of
importance
ljknews wrote:
What is wrong with this picture ?
I see both of you willing to mandate the teaching of C and yet not
mandate the teaching of any of Ada, Pascal, PL/I etc.
This seems like the teaching of making do.
You read more into my post than I wrote, as I did not mandate that the students
What is wrong with this picture ?
I see both of you willing to mandate the teaching of C and yet not
mandate the teaching of any of Ada, Pascal, PL/I etc.
This seems like the teaching of making do.
Hmmm, interesting point. In a particular set of learning objectives
required to complete a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Crispin Cowan
Sent: 07 July 2004 23:29
To: ljknews
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Education and security -- another perspective (was
ACM Queue - Content)
ljknews wrote:
What
En un mensaje anterior, ljknews escribió:
At 1:56 PM -0700 7/7/04, Dana Epp wrote:
I don't pick C for C's sake. I choose C because ON AVERAGE, most students will be
exposed to C more than the languages you suggest. Especially in the majority on
industries hiring students out of university.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of der Mouse
Sent: 08 July 2004 03:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Education and security -- another perspective (was
ACM Queue - Content)
I see both of you willing to mandate
Jose Nazario wrote:
rather than talking in a vacuum, make sure you've read the latest
ACM/IEEE-CS curriculum guidelines:
http://www.acm.org/education/curricula.html
http://sites.computer.org/ccse/
Hrm. I checked both pages, and searched for secur, and got nothing.
I didn't click
Fernando Schapachnik wrote:
I smell a discusion going nowhere. What is the point of teaching a languague?
Teach them to program in a paradigm (better, in all of them, and give them the
tools to make educated choices about which is better for each context), and
choose any language as an *example*
Dana Epp wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what people think of the two approaches
(separate security courses vs. spreading security all over the curricula).
Regards.
Fernando.
I don't think it's an either/or question; we need both approaches. Students
should study security wherever it's
Crispin Cowan wrote:
Another perspective (overheard at a conference 12 years ago):
* Scientists build stuff in order to learn stuff.
* Engineers learn stuff in order to build stuff.
I think that's about as accurate a summary of the distinction as you can make
in 16 words. What makes it
At 9:40 AM -0400 7/7/04, James Walden wrote:
Dana Epp wrote:
Of course, I also think students should have to take at least one course in ASM to
really understand how computer instructions work, so they can gain a foundation of
learning for the heart of computer processing. And
I think they
Fernando Schapachnik wrote...
I've considered 'secure coding' courses, and the idea always
look kind oversized. How much can you teach that students can't read
themselves from a book? Can you fill a semester with that? I'm
interested in people's experiences here.
I suppose that depends
En un mensaje anterior, der Mouse escribió:
I think over the past 40 years or so, as a discipline, we've failed
rather miserably at teaching programming, period.
Right. But on the other hand, that's not surprising - [because
we've mostly not even _tried_ to teach programming, as opposed
You are not nuts. Your course outline is a very substantial step in the
right direction.
- Original Message -
From: Dana Epp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Fernando Schapachnik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 16:42
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Education and security
der Mouse wrote:
Care to explain what do you think a 'programming course' should have
that is not covered in SE or CS courses (or curricula)?
A computer scientist is a theoretician. A software engineer is a
designer. A programmer is an implementer.
A computer scientist can prove you can't,
En un mensaje anterior, der Mouse escribió:
In general, I don't think this is an issue that is unique to _secure_
programming (coding, design, etc.). I think over the past 40 years
or so, as a discipline, we've failed rather miserably at teaching
programming, period.
Right. But on the
I think over the past 40 years or so, as a discipline, we've failed
rather miserably at teaching programming, period.
Right. But on the other hand, that's not surprising - [because
we've mostly not even _tried_ to teach programming, as opposed to
computer science or software engineering].
24 matches
Mail list logo
