I do C at college, and I'm ahead of class. I asked because I want an answer, not because I suck at programming.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 0:23
C is dumb if what you're after is understanding and knowledge. It's a fucking low-level industry language after all.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 2:57
>>5
You got your answer. I was first in many of my classes too, and at a world-recognized CS university to boot.
Guess what? I realized I knew shit about languages until I started to seriously poke around with Lisp and the functional world. Those projects you do at uni? They're nothing but toys.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 4:13
>>6
It's good for understanding of low-level affairs, which you also need to know if you want to be a good professional and know what the fuck happens when you do anything with LISP. You can't live with the thought it's "magic" or "prefer not to know", right?
If you're a control freak who just has to know what happens at the register level when you call function foo(), you won't make it as a professional programmer.
Real-world software projects are often too large for any one person to understand, especially not someone who gets assigned to do a 10 man-hour upgrade task on a project that took 20 man-years to write (which is much more common than writing entire applications from scratch).
Unless you get a job writing device drivers (in which case, a CS course is the wrong choice), the high-level stuff is far more important. If you want to learn low-level stuff like C, an Electronic Engineering course would probably be a better choice than Computer Science.
Name:
72005-11-17 7:01
>>8
Dude, I could make C dance the cha-cha on an abacus. I write code in it all the time. I did it for almost a decade before entering university.
But, every Lisp weenie I've ever seen knew C inside out. C is an easy language. It doesn't take much brainpower to use it. The problem is that few C hackers have used Lisp, which means they've missed out on a huge pool of knowledge.
Here, let me put it to you in different terms: what would you rather have as a general sorting routine, a 1337 bubblesort in zOMG pure 100% x86 asm, or quicksort in a slower language?
Do you get where I'm going with this? The Lisp bunch pretty much breathe algorithms. While some C hacker is toiling away to microoptimize a poor algorithm, the Lisp weenie goes to take a shit, throws together some algorithm with superior time complexity while squatting away, then comes back and writes it in under an hour.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 7:48
>>10 what would you rather have as a general sorting routine, a 1337 bubblesort in zOMG pure 100% x86 asm, or quicksort in a slower language?
I'd rather have void qsort(void *base, size_t nmemb, size_t size, int (*compar)(void *, void *)) .
Although I do get your point :) .
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 16:00
>>10
Rofl, it takes less than an hour to write a general bubblesort function in C/C++, without ever touching Lisp (I've done it myself). If I want to learn algorythms, I'll take a logics or conditional math course. If you're a programmer, you're going to shine if you never settle for anything less than the best, shortest algorythm you can come up with. Lisp or no Lisp. Personally, I'd rather spend my time gaining exp with the language I'm using rather than learn some abstract syntax noone in the industry uses just to learn what I'd be creating in C/C++ in the first place.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 16:53
Indeed it would realistically take 2 minutes. While I see where's >>10 coming from, good or bad algorithms aren't a feature of C or Lisp. You can do terribly wrong with Lisp, and terribly good with C. If you can think of a good algorithm for Lisp, you can think of an equivalent code with the same complexity for C. It's just a matter of not sucking.
In a programming 101 basic fundamentals kinda' way, yeah.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 19:54
>>13
Yes, yes, I know it has nothing to do with language. CS is lambda calculus, turing machines, grammars, discrete math, etc, not a particular language.
The point is, the Lisp bunch are better at it. What proportion of C hackers have read Knuth's books? What about Lisp? I guarantee you the Lispers will have a far higher proportion who have. For whatever reason, that's their culture.
>>19
The Lisp bunch is or can only be "better" at it because they're forced to learn the language in some course where all the other so-called benefits Lisp is credited for are taught. C programmers are mostly self taught, and aren't interested in some random guy's books. Yes, alot of them suck, but that's because they're too lazy to read the books, sit down, and think about what they're doing.
Programs are made by design, not philosophy. You need it to accomplish a certain task, you engineer the best possible solution. It's that simple. Programming is a straightforward thing to do. If you need an obsolete, 50 year old language to learn CS, I pity you.
mediocre programmer my ass...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 21:19
>>20
Ah, so you acknowledge that your average Lisper know more than a C hacker.
Pray tell, oh wise one, since all Lispers also know C, why aren't they using C? Why should we listen to you, someone who obviously has never used Lisp, over people who can use both?
mediocre programmer my ass... Personally, I'd rather spend my time gaining exp with the language I'm using rather than learn some abstract syntax noone in the industry uses just to learn what I'd be creating in C/C++ in the first place.
BTW, have you ever taken an algorithm course? You can't even spell the word properly, which makes me seriously wonder, considering the number of times that word would have been bashed into your skull otherwise.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 21:58
>>21
Lispers use Lisp because they can't acknowledge that they wasted their time learning a useless language. Lets face it - no real programs are written in Lisp. For a reason.
As for never having used Lisp, I actually took the time to read the syntax and its usage. Lisp is GARBAGE. It makes a bum writing html code look professional. That and the most basic code is cryptic in the sense that you can't read it like you would -normal- code. And people learn CS with this crap? Don't make me laugh. Note that I never acknowledged Lispers know more. I acknowledged they -can- know more due to the learning environment.
as for algorIthms, I haven't taken a course on them, because I don't need to. I solve such problems without much thought. No course needed.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 23:16
of course dear readers, we should realize that niether 21 nor 22 knows or programs in lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 23:25 (sage)
as for algorIthms, I haven't taken a course on them, because I don't need to. I solve such problems without much thought.
That's damning evidence if ever I saw it, and right out of your own mouth too.
>>22
Every post discredits you more, gb2 to trying to optimize your 200 line masterpiece that's going to be a really cool game when you're finished with it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-18 8:51
>>17
(professional) SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT = IMPLEMENTATION DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION RUSH RELEASE TESTING IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION RELEASE LOL I AINT FIXING THIS SHIT ANYMORE
AMIRITE
>>21
Languages are tools. Each tool has its uses. I don't know LISP, but I bothered to check how it was and what could you do with it years ago before talking about it. And as far as I could see, LISP is good as a metalanguage and is useful as a high level abstraction for certain CS projects. Yet I believe it'd suck for scripts, and it'd suck for graphics. Of course, CS people aren't writing a graphics engine or a kernel module, so they don't use C.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-20 5:05
>>19
I wish more colleges and universities actually taught that in CS instead of "maximize the curl of f(x)"
Professional software development never has design. Your requirements investigation is labeled "design" by the clueless management 4 levels above you. Then they whine about the lack of a cohesive product and late schedules because reality didn't cater to their cute little whims like their yes-men do.
While all the yes-men say "yes", I say "no". Then 3 months later, I come with "I told you so"
I also love it when they all go around designing and building it before anyone has any clue WTF it should be.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 13:15
>>31
I'm the one who says "Damn man, that idea has serious issues.", then does it because he's being paid, then he's sure he'll always have this job because there's so much stuff to fix.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 9:04
>>32
I used to do that until deciding to do more productive things with my time, because the quality of their work was absolutely disgusting, and they're on a non-stop excrement rampage.
So now they have to fix their own mess, and suddenly the amount of crap that gets proposed has plummeted.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 10:39
>>33
Yeah, I've seen code I wouldn't want to fix even if I'm getting paid. It's beyond the "i aint fixing this lol" point.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 15:54
>>12
You don't "gain" experience in a language, you USE it. No one uses Lisp? You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Try using C to solve AI problems...
>>40
Regardless of what you think of the quality. Referring to Knuth as "some random guy" is a clear indication that one has no interest in the field whatsoever. It should be obvious that people with a clear interest in everything that goes on in the field have a higher change to think outside of the box, and come up with a creative solution.
Lisp programmers are better programmers, not because of Lisp, but because they have learned a langauge that hardly has any practical value.
Industry has caught on to that and is actively recruiting programmers with Python/Ruby skills, to deploy them on Java projects, just because they chose to learn /more/ then just the stuff they were forced to learn on university.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 20:34
>>42
Yeah, but it's kind of a waste to use a Python programmer on Java. I'd rather have him doing Python, which is more productive and maintainable.
Interviewer: So, I noticed on your resume you know C, C++, perl, and... python and ruby? Interviewee: Yes. I still like using C sometimes, even assembler, but most my work I do in Python and Ruby. Of course, I favour using the right tool for the job, so sometimes I use other languages too. Interviewer: I also note you know Java. Interviewee: Uh... yes. Why? Interviewer: Well, recently we decided to port our primary software product to Java. Interviewee: O SHI I GOTTA GO!