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 bette
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 ANSI-com
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 we
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 develope
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 dec
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 J
> -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")
>
>
BB and i chatted offline, so let me make my points more clearly:
- have a look at what languages are being taught, it's been a
while since some of us have looked.
- if you don't like what you see, get involved. ie make sure
security is listed and taught.
__
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* of
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
> -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")
>
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 univ
> -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 -
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/
reputable undergrad institutions will focus on this, and many pre-college
programs will teach preparing
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 credent
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".
There's something better for teaching about stupid programming tricks
than C? The
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
m
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.
Primarily because that is what universities
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.
Makes sense to me. what is the point of teaching dead languages like
Ada, Pascal, and PL/I? Teach C, Assembler, and Java/C#
Another perspective on the education problem, keeping in mind that this
is a global issue (as most are):
"How Professor Hawking computes"
Posted June 10, 2004 in ALS News
http://www.rideforlife.com/archives/001014.html
© Copyright 2003: Indian Express Group (Mumbai, India).
. extract follows.
> 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 (som
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
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 thi
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 even
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 i
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, i
na 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 -- another perspective (was "ACM
Queue - Content")
I'd be interested to
6:42
Subject: Re: [SC-L] Education and security -- another perspective (was "ACM
Queue - Content")
> > I'd be interested to hear what people think of the two approaches
(separate
> > security courses vs. spreading security all over the curricula).
> >
> > Reg
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.
Well, I have been asked to teach a new forth year course at the British
Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) this fall on Secure Progra
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,
>>> 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 engin
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. B
> 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 other hand, that's not surprising - when did y
33 matches
Mail list logo
