"Nobody programs in machine language" (was: Modern

From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc_at_conman.org>
Date: Tue Jun 22 19:06:57 2004

It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated:
>
> > I think the reason assembly isn't taught anymore is that industry (or
> > academia) don't see it worth the time and effort to. Right now, the most
>
> Actually, IMHO the fact that it's often not a good idea to code in
> assembly language has _nothing_ to do with whether it should be taught (I
> think it should).

  I think it should be too (and I'm the author of the statement you quoted).
I remember complaining to a friend of mine (who worked as an admin in the
Comp Sci department of my college) about the direction the courses were
going (among other things, handing in source code in MS-WORD format). She
(and yes, it was a she 8-) said that it was a regular occurence for students
to visit the Dean and complain about classes either being too hard or not
relevent to their future employment prospects.

  So of course the courses got easier and drifted more towards a
Microsoft-centered view on things. Glad I was no longer there for this.
But most "universities" are but self-important trade schools.

> In fact what do you think should be taught in schools.

  Comp Sci seems to be the one subject that is tought backwards---that is,
with the latest and greatest instead of having the student work their way
through simpler concepts first (which follow historical progress, oddly
enough 8-) So yes, students should be first introduced to simple computers
that can be easily understood and only programmed in machine language, then
assembly and then slightly higher level languages.

  I'm also firmly believe that programmers should write a structured program
in an unstructured langauge, and an object oriented program in a non-OOP
language, and so on. That way, the student can at least appreciate what
each paradigm brings to programming.

  That, and having to maintain previously written student programs but
that's getting dangerously close to practicality and not enough ivory tower
flimflamery.

  At the very least, the truth that Lisp isn't a high level language at all
(it's not---to get even a hope of a useful program out of it, you need to
understand the underlying implementation and why (eq 2 2) is not always
true, but I digress 8-P

  -spc (Quick question: what was first? Lisp or FORTRAN?)
Received on Tue Jun 22 2004 - 19:06:57 BST