On 10/20/10 10:59 CDT, retard wrote:
Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:59:21 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
I don't mean to offend anyone, but if you [sic] CS degree (at least
for the last decade or so), doesn't teach about points 1 and 2 above as
part of core curricula, then it's a pretty crappy CS degree. The same is
probably also true for other related degrees (*-engineering, maths), at
least with regards to point 1.
This reminds me of
That is funny. Now and then you and Andrei talk so confidently about Go,
C#, Haskell and other D competitors, without having written more than a
couple of lines in those languages.
Walter also talks so confidently about CS degrees, without having earned
one. The experiences probably stem from his caltech times with the smelly
bearded hippie unix guys who wrote bubble sorts in some deprecated
assembler dialect.
This is becoming a real problem. I gave an example of Scala fairly
recently. I've given examples of code in other languages earlier. So has
bearophile. I can't ever assume that you guys study these basics. The
discussion stays at this level. It takes enormous amount of effort to
teach simple concepts. How many knows now what a monad is? It was
discussed again recently.
I think you are making a good point, and that the best way to realize
its potential is to contribute more concrete ideas and artifacts that
can be integrated within D to the extent possible. It's one thing to
discuss monads, it's another to demonstrate how threading a monad
through a pure D function achieves something that couldn't have been
achieved otherwise.
Andrei
