5 ms·

> Then they should display proficiency with assembly, c or c++, at least one scripting language... So graduates are expected to show proficiency in a minimum o

> Then they should display proficiency with assembly, c or c++, at least one scripting language... So graduates are expected to show proficiency in a minimum of 5 different programming languages? That sounds like an enormous waste of time.

lostcolony 5y ago
5 different programming paradigms. A single language can have multiple paradigms. Do you think there are tradeoffs worth considering between language paradigms? Is there a reason why you might want to write something close to the metal, vs something in a scripting language? Is there a reason you might want FP over OO for certain problems? I mean...my curriculum didn't explicitly call out languages anywhere, but along the way I picked up Python (intro class), Java (most classes), C and an x86 assembly (embedded class), C++ (graphics class)...and within two years of graduating I was wanting to learn a functional programming language, and changed jobs just to do it. Had I gone AI track I would have picked up a Lisp. It's not really that big an ask.
- toomanybeersies 5y ago
  When you put it that way, I sort of agree with you. I don't think whether a language is close to the metal or high level is an important distinction to be made in the context of learning computer science, but I do think that learning about different programming paradigms and concepts in the abstract is important. Learning x86 assembly for the sake of it isn't useful or educational. However, building an x86 compiler (or in my case JVM compiler) as part of a languages and compilers course is something worth doing.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Well, I will say that the class that had us learn assembler started with (software) FPGAs, then assembler, then C. The idea being that it demystifies a lot of what is going on underneath your code. Does it actually help you write better code in most instances? Probably not. It's helpful if you're writing embedded things (and that was the whole gist of the class), but for many devs it's not that useful. But that knowledge is still comforting; I've met devs who didn't have it, and they felt a little uncomfortable that they didn't understand how the code they wrote actually affected the underlying machine. shrug Certainly, "our CS degree is good for anything that isn't too low level" isn't the vibe most universities are going for.

lostcolony 5y ago

5 different programming paradigms. A single language can have multiple paradigms. Do you think there are tradeoffs worth considering between language paradigms? Is there a reason why you might want to write something close to the metal, vs something in a scripting language? Is there a reason you might want FP over OO for certain problems? I mean...my curriculum didn't explicitly call out languages anywhere, but along the way I picked up Python (intro class), Java (most classes), C and an x86 assembly (embedded class), C++ (graphics class)...and within two years of graduating I was wanting to learn a functional programming language, and changed jobs just to do it. Had I gone AI track I would have picked up a Lisp. It's not really that big an ask.

toomanybeersies 5y ago
When you put it that way, I sort of agree with you. I don't think whether a language is close to the metal or high level is an important distinction to be made in the context of learning computer science, but I do think that learning about different programming paradigms and concepts in the abstract is important. Learning x86 assembly for the sake of it isn't useful or educational. However, building an x86 compiler (or in my case JVM compiler) as part of a languages and compilers course is something worth doing.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Well, I will say that the class that had us learn assembler started with (software) FPGAs, then assembler, then C. The idea being that it demystifies a lot of what is going on underneath your code. Does it actually help you write better code in most instances? Probably not. It's helpful if you're writing embedded things (and that was the whole gist of the class), but for many devs it's not that useful. But that knowledge is still comforting; I've met devs who didn't have it, and they felt a little uncomfortable that they didn't understand how the code they wrote actually affected the underlying machine. shrug Certainly, "our CS degree is good for anything that isn't too low level" isn't the vibe most universities are going for.