Re: impara a programmare in 10 anni

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 04:44:05 -0700 (PDT), riccardo
<riccardo.odraccir@gmail.com> wrote:

>odio l' "ipse dixit", ma in questo caso credo sia appropriato:
>Dall' introduzione di "programming, principles and practice using c++"
>"why c++? c++ directly supports the key concepts and techniques used
>in real-world software.
>... Quality and/or free implementations are found on every kind of
>computer...Most of the programming concepts you will learn using c++
>can be used directly in other languages such as C, C#, Fortran and
>Java.
>... We teach programming first and treat our chosen programming
>language as secondary, as a tool. Our general approach can be used
>with any general purpose programming language. ....
>At the end of this book, will you be an expert at programming and at C+
>+? Of course not! When done well, programming is a subtle, deep, and
>highly skilled art building on a variety of technical skills. You
>should no more expect to be an expert at programming in four months
>than you should expect to be an expert in biology, math, in a natural
>language,or at playing the violin in four months, or in half an year,
>or a year. What you should hope for and what you can expect if you
>approach this book seriously, is to have a really good start that
>allows you to write relatively simple useful programs, to be able to
>read more complex programs and to have a good conceptual and practical
>background for further work.".
>Credo che questo chiuda la discussione.

Dimenticavo, da http://norvig.com/21-days.html

"Keep it simple. Programming languages such as C++ and Java are
designed for professional development by large teams of experienced
programmers who are concerned about the run-time efficiency of their
code. As a result, these languages have complicated parts designed for
these circumstances. You're concerned with learning to program. You
don't need that complication. You want a language that was designed to
be easy to learn and remember by a single new programmer."

*Keep it simple*. Questo si che chiude la discussione, anche
indipendentemente dai linguaggi discussi :).


nota per quelli che vedono guerre di religione ovunque: per me si può
sostituire C++ e/o Java con Common Lisp, ocaml, vari dialetti ML,
perl, ada, C, ... La questione non è nel citare nomi ma nel saper
motivare le cose. E' un invito a discutere.

nota 2: si, su Java si potrebbe discutere. E' di ordini di grandezza
più produttivo di C++, forse per partire non è poi il peggio che
esista a patto (come sempre) di non fermarsi solo a quello, cadendo
nell'effetto alla "perils of Java school".
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]