Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Education

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 3:44

What formal education have you had in programing?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 3:46

I'm actually in my first year of college but none of the teachers actually want to teach us so I have to read SICP and other such books to learn.

I'm not very good at the moment.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 4:08

EE degree, lots of x86/DSP assembly, VHDL was interesting. Also took 2nd semester C++ and a Prolog AI course, hated both.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 4:44

two or three years in college + a shitton of books & self study.
books > teachers

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:00

100% self-study, plus I've contributed to a  few open source projects, such as a JIT compiler for Squirrel
http://squirrel-lang.org

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:07

I took courses in a bunch of languages including a FUCKING AWESOME assembly-language course with a professor who really know what the hell he was talking about. (I swear this guy was straight out of the front-panel-switch days, he knew all the cycle counts and affected registers/flags for the whole x86 instruction set) Plus a couple of logic courses, too. No degree, but I do have a few throwaway certs (A+, Net+, Sec+).

One of my profs admitted that I knew more than he ever would about programming. That's when I realized that college is a waste of time.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:09

>>6
let me wave my dick around on an anonymous board

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:13

>>7
And your contribution to this forum is what, now?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:19

>>8
your

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:35

>>9
And your contribution to this forum is what, now?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:48

Two years of highschool Pascal.This year I'll be going to college-I hope.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:51

Third year of CS, plus lots and lots of self-study.
You need a few years of formal education, I think, to cover basics you wouldn't bother with on your own but which turn out to be important. Too many self-proclaimed ``autodidacts'' turn out to have gross deficiencies in basic areas.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:54

>>10
your

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:55

IM COMPUTER SCIENCE
DO YOU WANT ATTRIBUTE GRAMMARS?
DO YOU WANT WEAKEST PRECONDITION?
FUCKING JAVA
JAVA IS A BORING LANGUAGE

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 7:56

>>12
such as? (actually would like you to point them out if possible)

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 8:08

>>15
GOTO is harmful
Access to real CS brains
Turing completion / complexity theory
Object oriented Programming
Functional programming etc

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 9:22

3 years of CS/SE (in soviet rushka those usually aren't separated).  I wish I went to biochemistry or linguistics instead because I wasn't taught anything useful that I didn't know prior to going to class.

I'm >>17 and I'm a student?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 11:58

GOTO is harmful
In the same way that alcohol is harmful.

Access to real CS brains
Access to senseless software engineering prejudices.

Turing completion / complexity theory
Abstract bullshite.

Object oriented Programming
Useless without a basic understanding of design.

Functional programming etc
Functional programming in Java University?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 12:54

Functional programming in Java University?
It's more likely than you think. Just goes to show that you're unaware of the capabilities of Java. (Aside from being needlessly verbose and obtuse)

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 14:30

>>19
It's like saying:
My imaginary girlfriend can be deep (except when she's talking). That goes for functional programming with Sepples too.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 15:06

>>19
idiot

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 15:55

>>20
What's the average depth of a girlfriend in inches?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 16:20

>>22
7-8?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 16:49

>>23
My fingers tell me it's around 6.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 17:13

>>24
You have unusually large fingers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 17:25

>>25
Well, you know what they say about large fingers. >>24 should be a basketball player.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 18:45

>>25
Well, you know what they say about large fingers. >>24 is the Sussman.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 18:58

Absolutely none. I programmed as a hobby, but got a Master's degree in mathematics. When I realized that there weren't that many jobs that demanded pure math skills, I thought I may as well go for a job in programming.

The upside is that I find the math side of programming a breeze, but the downside is that I normally have to spend a really long time learning how to use a certain language, since I never learned about general programming topics that you would understand if you took a CS course.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-01 19:21

The poster above me has not read his SICP!

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 0:47

>>28
Math is useless in programming

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 1:12

>>30
Thats not what your wrong bitch said.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 1:45

mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/

All the training I've ever had.

EVER.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 2:28

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 5:28

>>31
your

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 7:14

I'm not a CS major but I teach CS majors how to do CS because I'm better than them since I have read SICP

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 7:49

>>35
Counter-Strike major?
Sir yes sir! lol

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 8:48

>>36
When I mentioned "CS major" to a friend of mine, he replied in a similar fashion. To which I replied, "Glen, you are a computer science major"

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 9:11

>>37
GLEN or GLENDA

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 9:38

>>35
[b]Strike and Interpretation of Counter Programs[b]

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 16:21

>>39
line 2:50 - syntax error; missing escape symbol (did you mean '[/b]'?)

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-02 22:50

>>40
You're BBCode compiles with nearly as many errors as his.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 3:15

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 16:59

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-17 20:10

check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 7:35


Zermelo began to work on the problems of set theory under Hilbert's influence and in 1902 published his first work concerning the addition of transfinite cardinals. By that time he had also discovered the so-called Russell paradox. In 1904, he succeeded in taking the first step suggested by Hilbert towards the continuum hypothesis when he proved the well-ordering theorem (every set can be well ordered). This result brought fame to Zermelo, who was appointed Professor in Göttingen, in 1905. His proof of the well-ordering theorem, based on the powerset axiom and the axiom of choice, was not accepted by all mathematicians, mostly because the axiom of choice was a paradigm of non-constructive mathematics. In 1908, Zermelo succeeded in producing an improved proof making use of Dedekind's notion of the "chain" of a set, which became more widely-accepted; this was mainly because that same year he also offered an axiomatization of set theory.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 8:20


κ1 = κ.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 9:05


The second result was proved by Cantor in 1878, but only became intuitively apparent in 1890, when Giuseppe Peano introduced the space-filling curves, curved lines that twist and turn enough to fill the whole of any square, or cube, or hypercube, or finite-dimensional space. These curves can be used to define a one-to-one correspondence between the points in the side of a square and those in the square.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 9:51


Cartesian product of A and B, denoted A × B, is the set whose members are all possible ordered pairs (a,b) where a is a member of A and b is a member of B. The cartesian product of {1, 2} and {red, white} is {(1, red), (1, white), (2, red), (2, white)}.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 10:36


An active area of research is the univalent foundations arising from homotopy type theory. Here, sets may be defined as classes of types, with universal properties of sets arising from higher inductive types.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-31 11:22


 Clearly we can do this: We start at the first box, choose an item; go to the second box, choose an item; and so on. The number of boxes is finite, so eventually our choice procedure comes to an end. The result is an explicit choice function: a function that takes the first box to the first element we chose, the second box to the second element we chose, and so on. (A formal proof for all finite sets would use the principle of mathematical induction to prove "for every natural number k, every family of k nonempty sets has a choice function.")

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List