Short version classes Walter things are good (and otherwise) for programmers.

My thoughts on his thoughts:

> Compiler Construction

Yup

> Assembler Programming

Oh, Yes!

> Jet Engine Analysis - [...] If I could figure out what this has to do with 
programming, I'd tell you. So sue me.

There both a "guy thing"? And just flat cool.

> Chemistry - [...] Chemistry seemed to be more oriented towards [...] and 
trial and error. I don't think that applies much to programming.

I thing trial and error applies to programming. I whish it didn't, but it sure seems to.

BCS wrote:
> Short version classes Walter things are good (and otherwise) for programmers.

Da link:

http://dobbscodetalk.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=So-You-Want-To-Be-A-Programmer-.html&Itemid=29

Reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/info/6prqb/comments/

Reply to Walter,

> Da link:
> 

I'm shure I had that in there... :(  (my bad)

BCS wrote:

> trial and error applies to programming

That depends of your definition of programming :-)

-manfred

== Quote from BCS (ao@pathlink.com)'s article
> Short version classes Walter things are good (and otherwise) for programmers. My thoughts on his thoughts:
> > Compiler Construction
> Yup
> > Assembler Programming
> Oh, Yes!

I liked the mention of Physics as well.  However, I'd have added Philosophy. As the foundation for logic, language theory, etc, some philosophic training is incredibly useful.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> I liked the mention of Physics as well.  However, I'd have added Philosophy.
> As the foundation for logic, language theory, etc, some philosophic training
> is incredibly useful.

Since I've never taken any courses in philosophy, I can't speak for that from personal experience.

I do know that after 4 years at Caltech, I was far better equipped to learn new things and solve problems I had no idea, beforehand, how to even begin.

For example, the senior classes were much tougher than the freshman ones, yet I needed to expend less effort to master them.

The curriculum was not designed to teach knowledge, but to teach you how to think.

Reply to Sean,

> == Quote from BCS (ao@pathlink.com)'s article
> 
>> Short version classes Walter things are good (and otherwise) for
>> programmers. My thoughts on his thoughts:
>> 
>>> Compiler Construction
>>> 
>> Yup
>> 
>>> Assembler Programming
>>> 
>> Oh, Yes!
>> 
> I liked the mention of Physics as well.  However, I'd have added
> Philosophy. As the foundation for logic, language theory, etc, some
> philosophic training is incredibly useful.
> 
> Sean
> 

One of the best classes I have taken was symbolic logic (Phil 202 IIRC). I'll never know why that is a Philosophy class and not a math class.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:59:30 -0700, Manfred_Nowak <svv1999@hotmail.com> wrote:

> BCS wrote:
>
>> trial and error applies to programming
>
> That depends of your definition of programming :-)
>
> -manfred

Famously: "Build one to throw away. You will anyway." (Fred Brooks, /The Mythical Man-Month/)

BCS <ao@pathlink.com> wrote in news:55391cb32ebb78caa9ac8a83e146 @news.digitalmars.com:
> 
> One of the best classes I have taken was symbolic logic (Phil 202 IIRC). I'll never know why that is a Philosophy class and not a math class.

The reason is mostly historical.  Logic has been part of philosophy since the ancient Greeks, but wasn't sufficienlty well developed to be treated with mathematical rigor until Frege (second half of the 19th century). IIRC, it isn't until Hibert that you get logic addressed as a fully mathematical subject.  Nowadays, both math and philosophy departments teach logic, though with a somewhat different emphasis.  Math departments generally teach it primarily at a grad student level.  Philosophy departments teach it at both grad and undergrad levels.

-- 
JMNorris

Davidson Corry wrote:

> Build one to throw away.

That's not a contradiction.
One is still free to define "coding the real thing" to be
"programming".

-manfred