I am with you 100% on that one. Especially when it comes to CS schools that should be teaching the fastest most effecient way to do things, and how to figure out how to do it even better.Musketeer wrote: Its 20-100x times faster and uses 20-100x less RAM?
Have you ever looked at Perl and Python? They are way harder than C, I have yet to figure out how to do indirection (eg poitners) in Python, and indirection simplifies a lot of algorithms.Imperf3kt wrote: Probably because compared to Python it's 20-100x harder to learn
At university level?mahjongg wrote: An interpreted language will always be slower than a compiled language, but for learning (and much else) that doesn't matter.
I will admit, personal opinion heavily swayed my response, but yes, I have looked at all the languages mentioned here.
I refute your premise there.Its 20-100x times faster and uses 20-100x less RAM?
Every CS student should write just a few lines of assembler so they quickly understand whats really going on under the cover. Maybe a hundred lines or so would be enough.
No they did not. The only mention of "university" here is by you.The OP indicated they were talking about at university level, far from beginning programmers. The University level indication is in the title of the thread itself.
Heater wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:15 pmDavidS,No they did not. The only mention of "university" here is by you.The OP indicated they were talking about at university level, far from beginning programmers. The University level indication is in the title of the thread itself.
Besides, as noted by Eben Upton when he tells the story of why he conceived the Pi, and as noted by myself when watching the online videos of undergraduate CS courses at Berkeley and MIT, those kids coming to university to study CS have no idea about programming. They get remedial programming education from the ground up in Python, and a version of Scratch last I saw. Ten years ago it was Scheme.
That is the CS guys, for those studying other sciences it is even less likely they know anything about programming when the hit "science school"
I think my technical school had it right back in 1974. Us teenagers were introduced to programming with BASIC. After a few weeks of that we were taught assembler. We had to do projects in both and at the end of the year we were examined in both.
Following that was university, guess what, the under grads were being taught BASIC. I had to go my own way to pursue ALGOL.
That I did not know, could you provide a link to the ISO standard for BASIC? Also how does it compare to the ANSI Standard (which was based on structured Darthmouth BASIC 5).jahboater wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:01 amEvery time I look at these interpreted languages I keep yearning for the simplicity and precision of C.
There have been vast numbers of posts about xxxxBasic on this forum, but despite there being a fairly recent ISO standard (2008), none of the BASIC developers seem to abide by it (most I suspect are not even aware of it). So we have discussions about how a for loop should behave. Randomly chosen syntax at the whim of the developers. Weird syntax for doing things that are trivial and clean in C.
Agreed.I see these languages being heavily reliant on anther language to get difficult stuff done (usually C).
Which adds the complication of mixing two languages and doesn't lead to confidence in the main language.
Even Fortran had a separate ISO standard just covering interoperability with C.
If I want to know precisely how something works in C, I can look at the ISO standard document. It is definitive and complete and the compilers follow it to the letter. They have to or they are defective.
https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/inc ... 91991r2005
Code: Select all
ANSI/ISO/IEC Standard for Minimal BASIC: ANSI X3.60-1978 "For minimal BASIC" ISO/IEC 6373:1984 "Data Processing — Programming Languages — Minimal BASIC" ECMA-55 Minimal BASIC (withdrawn, similar to ANSI X3.60-1978) ANSI/ISO/IEC Standard for Full BASIC: ANSI X3.113-1987 "Programming Languages Full BASIC" INCITS/ISO/IEC 10279-1991 (R2005) "Information Technology – Programming Languages – Full BASIC" ANSI/ISO/IEC Addendum Defining Modules: ANSI X3.113 Interpretations-1992 "BASIC Technical Information Bulletin # 1 Interpretations of ANSI 03.113-1987" ISO/IEC 10279:1991/ Amd 1:1994 "Modules and Single Character Input Enhancement" ECMA-116 BASIC (withdrawn, similar to ANSI X3.113-1987)
You don't really need pointers in scripting languages. You've got arrays (lists) and hashes (dictionaries). Both can be dynamic and you don't have to worry about allocation and cleaning up. Scripting languages also bring huge libraries of tested code that you don't have to spend years developing, so in their own way, you can get results much more quickly than in C.
I think you are saying that pointers are to data what goto's are to program control flow.Heater wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:56 pmI would wager that pointers make thinking about code harder and that historically errors using pointers is high up on the list causes of bugs, even among skilled, experienced programmers. Pointers certainly make any formal reasoning about the correctness of a program very hard if not impossible.
Instead of what? Using Java?