Drieux wrote:
>
[snip OP]
>
> first off you really SHOULD NOT scare people
> with phrases like " write microcode for " and
> then refer to a four digit chipset. WAY BAD FORM.
> { and yes, doing the Motorola side of the assembler
> on a RISC was much easier, none of that reverse
> polish notation smack... }IYHO presumably? > The best way to learn perl is to have someone on > site who can mentor you, since that way you have > the constraint of professional requirements, and > can see where perl fits into the flow. IF you > can not find a SithLord, then, well, join the > rest of us the old fashion way, vote for > comp.lang.perl - oh yeah, that's already happened... > Buy the Big Book, make mistakes, enjoy... IYHO presumably? > The hardest part is getting the knack for telling > which things are worth knowing, and which are > merely passing fads, the cult du jure... ... 'culte du jour'. > now back to the academic side of the chat. > > On Dec 8, 2003, at 4:07 AM, Rob Dixon wrote: > > Marcos Rebelo wrote: > [..] > >> from this side the University is very important. > >> Most of all, for learning how to think. > > > > Exactly. And that's the basis of all the best English > > universities which are, sadly, being swamped by all > > of our 'polytechnics' being rebranded. > > > > If you can't think, then no amount of 'Computer Science' > > lectures will help you to program. > > I'm not sure that I like the phrase > > "learning how to think" > > as much as I would probably argue for > > "develop the habit of formal analysis" Well, for me, 'formal analysis' belongs alongside 'writing in Perl'. If I paraphrase myself: Rob wrote: > > If you can't think, then no amount of 'Computer Science' > lectures will help you to [develop the habit of formal > analysis]. I start to think about a seven-layer model of understanding ;) > and from there hopefully move on into the rest > of the process of being able to present that > analysis in some polite way, eg: > > "Well now that is Organic Fertilizer,..." > > rather than merely blurting out say: > > "smells like dung to moi..." This sounds just like the anti-jargon argument over again. The people who need to distinguish finely between very similar ideas will always have to use 'specialist' phrases which are impenetrable to most. > What would be useful of the undergrad liberal arts > world would be a more active engagement in the > fine art of 'learning to learn' - namely that it is > not simply something that happens IN the hallowed halls > of the Ivory Tower, but is a fundamental survival skill > mix that separates "the eaters" from "the food". > > It is a BAD SIGN when > > On Dec 8, 2003, at 8:39 AM, Robert Brown wrote: > [..] > > I spent my freshman year at Duke in 1969 and got kicked out > > because the second semister I lived in the computer center > > and never went to class. > [..] IYHO presumably? I believe that ability (especially in the more mental subjects) comes from ideas and not vice-versa. I would compare an analyst's job with that of a journalist's, both of who need primarily to be able to think, and secondarily to be able to express those thoughts. > One of the other things that one should be learning > as an undergrad is a bit about 'time management' as > well as the various social and cultural skills that > make the university environment the recruiting > grounds for various spying organizations... And there is where we primarily differ. From two or three years old I was able to decide what I wanted to do and when. Making the commercial process more efficient is surely the job of 'management', whether it be government or parenthood? Wasn't 'spying organizations' somewhat tongue-in-cheek? > > Education is nice, but the economy is the governing factor. > > I still have that wife and daughter I told you about! > > This, unfortunately, is NOT something that most > universities will teach you up front. Having all > of the brilliance in the world does NOT mean that > it will make a job possible. Nor for that matter, > that one can figure out a way to sustain a long > term growing set of personal relationships. Ah! A new word - 'brilliance' - which is even more vague than 'science' or 'knowledge'. It sounds to me as if your argument is for perceived achievement as opposed to personal fulfillment. A 'job' and 'relationships' are purely personal goals. I have felt as much fulfilled by my studies of Latin and Greek as by my prenatal classes and basketball training. With a skewed perception the classical languages have provided insight even into ball games. > There is also nested in Robert's presentation that > more interesting idea - namely that one go back and > attend university anyway, and this time to do it with > an intention to graduate, and in a field that you find > at least interesting and amusing. Nothing Screws Up > the Kiddies like Grey Panthers arriving back 'from > the fleet' with 'additional perspective' not included > in the SillyBuy from the Prof.... Erm. Pass. I didn't understand a word of that. > Ultimately one needs to re-read Marcos' other line: > > On Dec 7, 2003, at 10:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [..] > > Anyone can do hacker programming but for doing software > > engineering you need to know a little bit more. > [..] > > The question remains whether that is material > that a University can provide, or is that the > sort of professionalism that comes from life > amongst the professionals. I thought I was going to agree with you here, but to me 'hacker programming' is 'software engineering'. I would almost certainly employ a 'hacker', because he is likely to have learned how to make software work. My reservation would be that he would be likely to have a broad philosophy of contempt. > A part of the problem IS the very phrase "software > engineering". Has it been an ambition, rather than an actual > assertion, of a real relationship between 'software' and > 'engineering'. No. I think it's just an admission of the shortcomings of the English language. An 'engineer' is someone who makes things. It's a lot like calling a painter an 'artistic engineer'. But my belief is that using 'engineer' in the software profession has brought in too many who see it as a job working with 'materials'. For me there are too many programmers who will happily assemble an entire program and then hack it until it seems to work. And then, on installation, of course it fails for unanticipated reasons. That belies the 'engineer' title. > As folks start noticing that 'there is more than one way > to do it' - in perl, out of perl, etc, etc, etc... The > mythological 'software engineering' entity really comes > under fire perchance more than merely 'hacker programming'. Mythos in the proper sense, yes. But it sounds like you need to be exorcised of your own presumptions about 'software engineering'. > Think for a moment folks, the lead time that a university > will need to just get the course catelog out the door. In > that same amount of time, the professional rags will of > course wander their way through how many different hip > new next wave trends in CodeMonger??? Anyone ever see > that 4GL? Or are we really retreating into the new > wave of IDE, that makes the CodeMonkey more productive??? Hmm. Has someone treated you badly or what? Get off your horse and try to change things to what you believe they should be. Forget trying to change individuals. [snip rant] Dieux. I like your Perl thinking and reckon it's good and helpful here. Please don't dilute it with OT personality stuff. Cheers, Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
