No bad blood, or at least not what wasn't already there. This discussion and
others have came up before, and it usually ends up with me and chris on one
side, and Thomas on the other. I think it's a matter of preference and what
we've expereinced in the past.
Thanks,
Tyler Littlefield
http://tds-solutions.net
Twitter: sorressean
On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:09 PM, nimak247 wrote:
>
> Christopher, Thomas, and Tyler,
> Thank you all for the long replies. Hope I didn't cause any bad blood between
> you all with my post :O).
>
> If I may, this course is my second one. The first one was in Java, where we
> learned the basics; This one is building off of that. The first lecture was
> all about what is similar vs what is dissimilar. Pointers popped up pretty
> much right off the bat, in chapter 2 of the book being used for the course.
>
> To be honest, I am fascinated with both c and c++ because of things like
> pointers; That sort of stuff that you wont see in c#, java and the like. I
> guess I am one of those people that just "wants to know".
> I may get stuck every once in a while, but thanks to wonderful groups like
> this one, I can get an answer and learn from it, keeping going till it
> understand it.
>
> nim
>
> --- In c-prog@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Coale <chris95...@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Hruska wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Christopher Coale wrote:
> > > > Thomas Hruska wrote:
> > > >> I'm probably the most guilty party here. My view is that pointers are
> > > >> an _advanced topic_. It doesn't mean you shouldn't learn how to use
> > > >> them nor use them at all.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I'm moreso referring to this question by Paul Herring, "Why are you
> > > > using pointers in C++?" That seems to imply that we should not use
> > > > pointers in C++. I agree with you that pointers should not be taught
> > > > right away, and most formal curricula do not teach it right away (in
> > > > fact, you'll probably go at least half a semester before reaching them).
> > >
> > > Because exposed pointers at the Application layer almost always shows a
> > > lack of understanding of what templates and classes are for.
> > >
> >
> > I don't see the connection. Can you not have a pointer based on a
> > template? Can you not have an object-pointer?
> >
> > >
> > > > In a formal curriculum, C++ is not the first language you take.
> > > > Generally you start with "Computer Logic" (which is an introduction
> > > to a
> > > > language like Java, VB.net, etc.), followed by C/pascal, then C++. So
> > > > generally, all they need to do is carry over the same logic but
> > > adapt to
> > > > the C syntax (which is really just memorization, the logic is the
> > > same).
> > > > They won't be "learning" basic code structures, but rather learning the
> > > > C++ syntax and how to adapt their logic to it. But if you are talking
> > > > about simple tutorials to learn C++, then I agree.
> > >
> > > You must be living in a completely different world from the one I live
> > > in.
> > >
> > Well that is for damn sure. If you started with C++ at school, then you
> > went to a horrible school. I am a paid tutor at my college and see how
> > well it works when you teach the student logic prior to teaching them a
> > low-level language. And even beyond that, teaching them C before
> > teaching them C++ (which is debatable and besides the point of this
> > topic). So, you must be living in a different world than I.
> >
> > > Most educational institutions I'm aware of that teach C/C++ start
> > > with C/C++ with _optional_ starter courses in another language.
> > >
> >
> > Rarely will you see a C/C++ course without prerequisites in a logic
> > course, introduction to computer science course, etc. So, as I said
> > before, if they throw you into C++ then either it is a terrible
> > school/curriculum.
> >
> > >
> > > >> C++ makes it possible to defer teaching pointers until MUCH later on.
> > > >>
> > > > I agree.
> > > >
> > > > So here is my conclusion: you should *not* avoid pointers in C++. If
> > > > they consistently cause your program to develop memory leaks and
> > > > crashes, then you need to go back and re-learn how pointers work. I
> > > > agree that pointers should not be taught too early when learning C++
> > > > (and they usually aren't in a formal curriculum).
> > >
> > > By "much later on", I mean several years, not half a semester.
> > >
> >
> > I dare you to mention that to any real computer science/engineering
> > professor. The problem doesn't lie within the difficulty of pointers -
> > it lies in the student's lack of understanding of how the computer
> > actually works (hence leading to not actually understanding what a
> > pointer is).
> >
> > >
> > > And I am extremely well-versed in pointers. They may be useful but are
> > > advanced and dangerous. Improper use causes crash bugs, memory leaks,
> > > memory corruption, _security vulnerabilities_, etc.
> > >
> >
> > *Improper use*, exactly.
> >
> > > After watching
> > > http://nvd.nist.gov/ <http://nvd.nist.gov/> for several months, I
> > > became entirely convinced
> > > that pointers at the Application layer are a VERY bad idea.
> > >
> >
> > Code the software properly and you have nothing to worry about. (and I
> > am simply talking about pointer-related bugs, not exploitations that can
> > happen regardless of pointer usage.)
> >
> > > I read that as "programmers can't write stable software to
> > > save their lives."
> > >
> >
> > Therefore, to accommodate the stupid programmer, we should ban the use
> > of pointers? Good idea.
> >
> > > Every major security vulnerability that says "crash"
> > > or "buffer overflow" or "exploitable memory leak", etc. is caused by a
> > > programmer mismanaging their pointer logic.
> > >
> > Again, notice that you have consistently blamed the programmer. I agree
> > entirely.
> >
> > > And they are mismanaging
> > > their pointer logic because they don't know how to develop software.
> > > They don't know how to develop software because they weren't taught how
> > > to develop software in school.
> > >
> > Assuming you are talking about U.S. schools, I agree. I catch this all
> > of the time with my students. If I had the power to reform the computer
> > science curriculum at my school, believe me, I would. Before teaching a
> > programming language, I would want the student to understand how the
> > computer actually works. One of my Logic students doesn't even know what
> > "RAM" is - they are not properly prepared prior to taking a course like
> > C/C++ (I see this *everyday* with my students).
> >
> > But again, I repeat, this is the *programmer's fault*.
> >
> > >
> > > Migrating pointers to a Library layer and then not using pointers at the
> > > Application layer introduces a level of stability to the Application
> > > layer not otherwise achieved. Libraries are viewed as reusable code
> > > that generally stabilize over time. Even within my own Library layer, I
> > > prefer to migrate pointer use to templates only (specifically, Block and
> > > BString handle almost everything I need). So, if the same Library is
> > > used from year to year with enhancements and fixes as the students go
> > > along, it becomes possible to create incredibly powerful, yet stable
> > > programs WITHOUT using pointers in the Application layer.
> > >
> > I understand, and also agree with you (to an extent). However, pointers
> > should not be avoided for that sole purpose. It is illogical to write a
> > wrapper around a library simply to avoid using a pointer in your
> > "Application layer".
> >
> > > I'd love to
> > > see first-year students leveraging files, databases, sockets, and GUIs
> > > in C++ without having to worry about silly things like pointers, crash
> > > bugs, memory bounds, etc.
> > >
> > I would hate to see first-year students doing any of that in C++. They
> > shouldn't be in C++ (unless they have tested out of prerequisite
> > courses). What you are doing is dumbing down the language so it suits a
> > dumbed down society.
> >
> > > I'd rather see students leaving college with solid software
> > > development practices under their belt than wrestling with the
> > > unnecessary nuances of pointers and, still not understanding them,
> > > introducing vulnerable software into the wild.
> > >
> >
> > I would love that, too. Perhaps if they had a proper understanding of
> > pointers before trying to use them they wouldn't be in that situation.
> > Hiding pointers from them no way solves that problem - like I said
> > before, you are dumbing down a language to suit a dumbed down society.
> >
> > > I know you will disagree with me on several (perhaps all) points.
> > >
> >
> > Not all of them. ;)
> >
> > > I see
> > > C++ as a stagnant language with numerous problems in danger of dying.
> > >
> >
> > Sadly, as do I. It is quite frustrating to see this. Too many people are
> > switching to languages like C#.
> >
> > > I
> > >
> > > see the future being in mobile devices - and none of the currently
> > > popular mobile OS platforms host C/C++ as a native compiled language for
> > > the apps that run on those platforms.
> > >
> >
> > I see mobile devices keeping their same market (perhaps expanding, but
> > not taking over). C/C++ has its place (for a while, anyways).
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
<mailto:c-prog-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com>.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/c-prog/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/c-prog/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
c-prog-dig...@yahoogroups.com
c-prog-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c-prog-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
