4 ms·

> Broad computer-science skills that include technological awareness and analytical thinking are more important than narrow programming skills, Hartovi said. "

by NAFV_P 12y ago

> Broad computer-science skills that include technological awareness and analytical thinking are more important than narrow programming skills, Hartovi said. "Learning how to code in any one particular [computer] language is not going to be worthwhile beyond 10 or 20 years," he said. "Learning how to problem-solve using algorithms and how technology works and how it's built is going to last a century at least." I fail to see how you could write an algorithm if you don't know how to code.

trentmb 12y ago
> I fail to see how you could write an algorithm if you don't know how to code. You never followed directions until you learned how to program? I learned addition, multiplication and division algorithms before I even got a computer.
- NAFV_P 12y ago
  > You never followed directions until you learned how to program? Of course I did (sometimes reluctantly). Before I learned programming, I couldn't 'write' an algorithm in a file and get a computer to follow those directions instead. > I learned addition, multiplication and division algorithms before I even got a computer. I know, subtraction is so damn hard to get right isn't it.
iak8god 12y ago
>I fail to see how you could write an algorithm if you don't know how to code. I teach introductory programming to college freshmen. We usually spend the first few classes talking about, writing, and refining algorithms in clear and simple English before we even start talking about the programming language they're to learn.
- NAFV_P 12y ago
  > I teach introductory programming to college freshmen. We usually spend the first few classes talking about, writing, and refining algorithms in clear and simple English before we even start talking about the programming language they're to learn. Explaining algorithms to someone in clear and simple English will enable them to understand those algorithms, but a computer does not understand English. To 'write' an algorithm for a computer to perform, you need to code.
  - owlish 12y ago
    There seems to be a misunderstanding of the word algorithm here. "Algorithm" refers to a set of instructions/operations that do not necessarily occur on a computer. You may know non-computer algorithms as "routines" or "procedures".
    - NAFV_P 12y ago
      > There seems to be a misunderstanding of the word algorithm here. I can assure you there is none , the misunderstanding is with my original comment: 'writing an algorithm'. > You may know non-computer algorithms as "routines" or "procedures". Like the algorithm "make a nice, hot cup of coffee", which is executed billions of times each day by biological computers known as humans. EDIT: wrt my naff spelling.
lliwta 12y ago
> I fail to see how you could write an algorithm if you don't know how to code. Algorithms have existed for centuries. Computer programs have meaningfully existed for 100 years, if we're generous. And for a lot of that time, you had to design the entire algorithm correctly before running to code, or else you'd have to wait a day or two and try again (unless you were important). Even today, if you're designing a truly novel algorithm, you're very likely to spend the bulk of your time not coding, and then coding only at the end as a sort of check to make sure you ideas work out. Of course everyone has different processes and YMMV, but mt general impression is that most people who design significant (read publication worthy) algorithms do the bulk of their work away from the keyboard. And honestly, having taught high school cs students, the best students have this process: 1) try a niave solution, notice it won't work before they even compile. Maybe finish the program just to confirm their suspicion that it's wrong; 2) go to the white board for a while, and probably talk with their friends about potential solutions and pitfalls; 3) design the algorithm, and then code it up. Usually there's no pseudo-code before they start programming, but they have a pretty clear idea of the general structure of the algorithm; 4) test on inputs that they identified as reasons the niave solution(s) discussed at the board didn't work. edit: the very worst students are the ones who sit in isolation hacking away at iterative improvements on a fundamentally flawed idea. Usually they're trying to get their for loops sorted out and working correctly so that the program actually gets around to giving them any answer, and don't even get around to noticing their solution is completely and fundamentally broken until the end of class. Which is to say, from my observation, coding-as-problem-solving is not very effective until after you've thought things through in more general, mathematical terms.
- NAFV_P 12y ago
  > Even today, if you're designing a truly novel algorithm, you're very likely to spend the bulk of your time not coding, and then coding only at the end as a sort of check to make sure you ideas work out. If you cannot code, you cannot check that your ideas work out on a computer. > Which is to say, from my observation, coding-as-problem-solving is not very effective until after you've thought things through in more general, mathematical terms. I don't see how that relates to my comment, I specifically referred to 'writing' an algorithm, as in implementing the algorithm in code, not devising the algorithm in the first place.

by NAFV_P 12y ago

trentmb 12y ago

> I fail to see how you could write an algorithm if you don't know how to code. You never followed directions until you learned how to program? I learned addition, multiplication and division algorithms before I even got a computer.

NAFV_P 12y ago
> You never followed directions until you learned how to program? Of course I did (sometimes reluctantly). Before I learned programming, I couldn't 'write' an algorithm in a file and get a computer to follow those directions instead. > I learned addition, multiplication and division algorithms before I even got a computer. I know, subtraction is so damn hard to get right isn't it.

iak8god 12y ago

>I fail to see how you could write an algorithm if you don't know how to code. I teach introductory programming to college freshmen. We usually spend the first few classes talking about, writing, and refining algorithms in clear and simple English before we even start talking about the programming language they're to learn.

NAFV_P 12y ago
> I teach introductory programming to college freshmen. We usually spend the first few classes talking about, writing, and refining algorithms in clear and simple English before we even start talking about the programming language they're to learn. Explaining algorithms to someone in clear and simple English will enable them to understand those algorithms, but a computer does not understand English. To 'write' an algorithm for a computer to perform, you need to code.
- owlish 12y ago
  There seems to be a misunderstanding of the word algorithm here. "Algorithm" refers to a set of instructions/operations that do not necessarily occur on a computer. You may know non-computer algorithms as "routines" or "procedures".
  - NAFV_P 12y ago
    > There seems to be a misunderstanding of the word algorithm here. I can assure you there is none , the misunderstanding is with my original comment: 'writing an algorithm'. > You may know non-computer algorithms as "routines" or "procedures". Like the algorithm "make a nice, hot cup of coffee", which is executed billions of times each day by biological computers known as humans. EDIT: wrt my naff spelling.

lliwta 12y ago

> I fail to see how you could write an algorithm if you don't know how to code. Algorithms have existed for centuries. Computer programs have meaningfully existed for 100 years, if we're generous. And for a lot of that time, you had to design the entire algorithm correctly before running to code, or else you'd have to wait a day or two and try again (unless you were important). Even today, if you're designing a truly novel algorithm, you're very likely to spend the bulk of your time not coding, and then coding only at the end as a sort of check to make sure you ideas work out. Of course everyone has different processes and YMMV, but mt general impression is that most people who design significant (read publication worthy) algorithms do the bulk of their work away from the keyboard. And honestly, having taught high school cs students, the best students have this process: 1) try a niave solution, notice it won't work before they even compile. Maybe finish the program just to confirm their suspicion that it's wrong; 2) go to the white board for a while, and probably talk with their friends about potential solutions and pitfalls; 3) design the algorithm, and then code it up. Usually there's no pseudo-code before they start programming, but they have a pretty clear idea of the general structure of the algorithm; 4) test on inputs that they identified as reasons the niave solution(s) discussed at the board didn't work. edit: the very worst students are the ones who sit in isolation hacking away at iterative improvements on a fundamentally flawed idea. Usually they're trying to get their for loops sorted out and working correctly so that the program actually gets around to giving them any answer, and don't even get around to noticing their solution is completely and fundamentally broken until the end of class. Which is to say, from my observation, coding-as-problem-solving is not very effective until after you've thought things through in more general, mathematical terms.

NAFV_P 12y ago
> Even today, if you're designing a truly novel algorithm, you're very likely to spend the bulk of your time not coding, and then coding only at the end as a sort of check to make sure you ideas work out. If you cannot code, you cannot check that your ideas work out on a computer. > Which is to say, from my observation, coding-as-problem-solving is not very effective until after you've thought things through in more general, mathematical terms. I don't see how that relates to my comment, I specifically referred to 'writing' an algorithm, as in implementing the algorithm in code, not devising the algorithm in the first place.