I have a programming problem that we as a group may beable to tackle. As some of you will know I am dislex... and find the "spell check" on most systems as not helpfull.
So I am thinking of putting togever a website for devloping a "dislex.. spell check" and perhaps this could be a project that could be worked on as a group (any body intrested?) Who dous this fit into this threed and OO Well lets have a look at what the goal should be:- I want to find some words and the spell check can not find them. 1) One of the words is "Brain" but I have put "Braid" both are the right spelling but only one is right. 2)The other is that word that is the name of a fruit but not an apple and is the same name as a colour. The first one is a problem on contexeulised searching. The secound one is a problem of relationlised searches. Tacking the secound search I would like to beable to enter froot, apple, fruit and/or colour and for the program to find orange as one of the posibal answers. I can do this easly in BASIC and C by using what I call linked-lists (this may not be the same as what is knowen by other programmes as linked lists) What I mean is: each word is stored as an array (theIndex, theWord, theLink) (theLink) being a pointer to other words so: that data would be:- a1,apple,b2a304a2 a3,orange,a1b204a2 b2,tree,a1a304a2 so what would happen if I entered a search for "tree" the "theLink" would also point to "apple" and "orange" as well as others. The problem is in OO we are define a singel object that is self contaned with data and methords to do things with that data but I want to make links between objects if I chouse "the word" as the object but as fare as I know doing this in OO is a big no,no. I may be wrong am I? So what should the Object be? (word, link or index) and how would you link one object to another? I'll let the group know when the web site is up if any one is into helping with this? Steve On 17 Mar 2010, at 22:37, Andrew Clark wrote: > Steve wrote: > > not all problems are the same, I think we have got so focused on OO that > perhaps we have thowen the baby out with the bath water. > > We probably have, OO is just a means of coping with complexity and in that > respect it works. > > Andrew > > > > > From: peterboro-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk > [mailto:peterboro-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Steve > Tompkins-MacQueen > Sent: 17 March 2010 21:38 > To: Peterborough LUG - No commercial posts > Subject: Re: [Peterboro] Programming language to learn > > > On 17 Mar 2010, at 15:51, Andrew Clark wrote: > > > > > Steve wrote: > > We are all told by the books on programming and others that Object Orintated > (OO)languages like Objective-C and C++ are easer to learn (for me they are > NOT!!!). I have a problem with the consept of repatting my self and using 3 > lines of code where one will do: > > OO languages like java are used in Education > > I was not talking about education. > > > not because they are easier to learn, but because they follow the theory of > OO and build better programs. > > Some thing we all know. > :-) LOL > The consept of "better" is a dificalt one to define. "better" programs are > not made though the use of any given methodologe but "better" desine > :-) LOL > > > Not in the case of Hello, World but in bigger projects especially with > multiple programmers. > > I used "Hello World" not because it is a representation of a big project or > a project with multiple programmers but because it simply demostars the > problems with saying any given methodologe is the best. As not all problems > are the same, I think we have got so focused on OO that perhaps we have > thowen the baby out with the bath water. > > I always teach C prior to C++ because it is easier to learn and it is a > very simple language. > > I so wish I did NOT learn BASIC and C prior to C++ and Objective-C. I am > shore I would find learning OO easer if I had not had C before hand because I > would always be comparing things back to C. > > > I leant it from K&R but that’s going back a bit... > > Andrew > > > > > From: peterboro-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk > [mailto:peterboro-boun...@mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Steve > Tompkins-MacQueen > Sent: 17 March 2010 00:06 > To: Peterborough LUG - No commercial posts > Subject: Re: [Peterboro] Programming language to learn > > I started programming when 1980/81 on TRS-80, ZX-81 and RM-380 the 2 things > all of these had in common was a Z80 CPU mechincode and BASIC > > BY 1998 I had started a HND in computer and comuation hardware and software > engernering and had to get to grips with C and a year latter started C++ > > Now I'm trying to get to grips with Objective-C > > Now most of you by now know I am dislex... and can see that from my spelling > but some of you may also know that it also changes the way I think. > > We are all told by the books on programming and others that Object Orintated > (OO)languages like Objective-C and C++ are easer to learn (for me they are > NOT!!!). I have a problem with the consept of repatting my self and using 3 > lines of code where one will do: > > OO coding:- > > 1) Define what the object "hello would" is going to be. > 2) Define the methords that "hello would" is going to use. > 3) cerate the "hello would" object > 4) create a instance of the "hello would" object > 5) use the instance of "hello would" > 6) distroy the instance of "hello would" > > C > main () > { > printf ("hello would" ); > } > > BASIC coding:- > 10 Print "hello would" > > witch language is better? > > Answer: witch ever you like. > > witch language should I lern? > > Answer: depends on what computer and OS you whant the program to run on, what > you want to do and how your brain works. > > LINUX/UNIX text based mostly C and C++ > Web PHP and Java Script (difent from "Java") > Mac (Mac, iPhone, iPad) Objective-C > Old Home computers BASIC > > MYSQL PHP seems to be the way to go. > there are meny others > > Steve > > > > > On 16 Mar 2010, at 21:36, Umar Ijaz wrote: > > > > Quite a few years back i started a degree in computer science and the > language that was chosen by the faculty was C. C is a good starter language. > But now I think C++ could be a better language if you want to start dipping > your toes. I currently use C++ as a hobbyist :-P I am still learning > different things. > > Comparing C with C++. They share the same basics. But C++ lets you explore > a lot more. I am currently completing my degree with the Open University and > there we use Java. On comparision Leicester University uses C. It is not > the syntax but the application of the language and how it can be used easily. > > But that said and after Tony's message, I have no idea how to do it all on > Linux :-P I am still new to Linux and would wanna know more about > programming in the Linux environment. Apparently the Linux command line is a > powerful tool. I read on one of the websites about it. but then again Tony > would be an expert on this. > > Take a look here > > http://linuxcommand.org/learning_the_shell.php > > The first paragraph has inspired me to learn Linux. > > I hope this helps. > > Umar > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Stewart Robertson <stewar...@aliencamel.com> > wrote: > Your thoughts, if you please... > > I've been reading various threads/articles discussing the pros and cons > of learning/writing in various programming languages (C, C++, Java, > Python, Perl, Ruby, PHP etc.) > > I do not have huge amounts of time to devote to learning a particular > language but at the same time I am not in a hurry to learn a language > for the sake of it (i.e. I'll keep dipping in over a long period of time). > > So far I have come to the conclusion that C is a good option because it > is used in a lot of important stuff and runs quickly. At the same time > Python is much easier to get to grips with. PHP is very web specific and > Java is a pain to learn. > > What language do you think it would be most useful to start dipping my > toes in to and why? > > Cheers, > > Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2751 - Release Date: 03/16/10 > 19:33:00 > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date: 03/17/10 > 07:33:00 > > _______________________________________________ > Peterboro mailing list > Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
_______________________________________________ Peterboro mailing list Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
