3 ms·
> IMO that's the wrong way to do it. Using myself as an example it took me far longer to learn things like data structures than it should have. Why? Because I s
by geezerjay 9y ago
> IMO that's the wrong way to do it. Using myself as an example it took me far longer to learn things like data structures than it should have. Why? Because I still hadn't wrapped my head around pointers.
How do you expect to understand anything about data structures if you fail to wrap your head around one of the most basic data structure mechanism around: referencing a memory address?
In fact, how exactly do you expect to implement a data structure if you fail to understand the very basics of accessing and managing memory?
I don't see how that's a problem caused by a particular pick of programming language. In fact, that seems to be a major failure to understands the very fundamentals of CS.
- jghn 9y agoBecause a memory reference isn't necessary to be completely understood to understand the concept? It's just a low level implantation detail. I can draw a structure on a whiteboard and indicate that element a points to b. That doesn't need to imply a "pointer". I'm. It saying avoid the topic altogether in saying one doesn't need to understand memory management to do structures If anything learning things this way would likely make learning about memory references easier?