Re: Converting int to string
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNovy
Such school tasks are senseless like hell, especially for C#.
Instead learning how to code and implement clean .NET apps,
teachers force students to do such crap. Why the hell
the programming languages are so powerful?!
Right then. What do you propose that someone who has been learning C# for 2 weeks should be doing for problem sheet 1? Implement a FIFO Queue... oh wait, that's already in C#. Implement a linked list? Oh wait, that's there too. I know, implement a multi-threaded chat server!
If they don't learn how to think about problems and solve stuff like this for themselves, they'll fail. Personally, i don't particularly care. I know someone who had to copy/paste their way through comp sci will never be able to take my job ;)
Re: Converting int to string
it is obviously that C# is not that right language for such tasks.
Re: Converting int to string
So C# is not the right language for beginners to learn. Grand. That's a fair enough comment. Obviously you believe real programmers should start on C, just like I did (and I'm sure you did too).
Re: Converting int to string
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutant_Fruit
So C# is not the right language for beginners to learn. Grand. That's a fair enough comment. Obviously you believe real programmers should start on C, just like I did (and I'm sure you did too).
Just like you did? And now you don't?
Re: Converting int to string
You can only being to learn how to program once in your life. I started on C. Anyway, this is rediculously off topic at this stage. You know how i feel.
Re: Converting int to string
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutant_Fruit
You can only being to learn how to program once in your life. I started on C. Anyway, this is rediculously off topic at this stage. You know how i feel.
One more thing before the OP gets his thread back :)
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, or what, haha. But IMHO believe that a starting programmer should start with C, or at least C++. Due to the fact that languages like VB.NET and C# dont show you whats going on under the surface. Sure... C++ doesnt really have the "Instant Gratification" thing going on, but it teaches you about memory, and C teaches you about even lower level things.
I for one can vouch for developers who have never started at a low level, I started with C# right off the bat and said "Wow, this is easy!" and just stayed with it. Low and behold when I became more experienced and started to realize just how nasty the code was that I was writing was getting under the surface, I said "I need to get into some C or assembly and learn about this stuff the right way".
I guess my point being is, new programmers need to be taught the fundamentals, otherwise... with languages like C#, its like having a car but never being able to pop the hood. Just being able to turn the wheel and shift the gears. I wish I would have started in C or C++ first ;)
EDIT: And I dont believe software developers should start and stay on something like C, but I believe its VITAL for them to learn the fundamentals of how memory and computer systems operate.
Re: Converting int to string
I'd venture to say that about 90 (- 95)% of development that goes on (and in the business sector it's much higher) does not require knowing what goes on "behind the scenes" as it were to fulfill their responsibilities.
Secondly, I find it amusing to say the least that C++ has become a "low level language." because when C came out, it was considered a high level language because of its abstraction from the underlying assembly / machine languages previously being employed.
IMHO everybody in the world should stay away from C (especially if you plan on being a C++ developer) as it tends to lend itself to bad programming practices from an object oriented standpoint anyway. Unless you plan on sticking to low level OS programming, then I think C is a perfectly fine way to go, otherwise, there are better ways to do things.
Re: Converting int to string
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadHatter
I'd venture to say that about 90 (- 95)% of development that goes on (and in the business sector it's much higher) does not require knowing what goes on "behind the scenes" as it were to fulfill their responsibilities.
Agreed, but I still find comfort in knowing everything I can about how systems operate. In my current job, I was hired in as a C# developer, but I have since then expanded into writing assembly for some of our embedded systems. You never know when you'll need to use it so I find it best to absorb as much as you can :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadHatter
Secondly, I find it amusing to say the least that C++ has become a "low level language." because when C came out, it was considered a high level language because of its abstraction from the underlying assembly / machine languages previously being employed.
I guess I classify it as low level just because that's how Ive always thought about it, its an extremely powerful and versatile language. Albeit not a "low level" language by definition...
Re: Converting int to string
I think most would consider C++ a low level language these days. my data structures teacher was an old retired assembly programmer and didn't think much of C because you didn't have direct access to registers and such. IMO he saw it in the same light that C/C++ programmers may see the likes of java and C#. Not being able to access registers, not being able to manipulate allocations/deletions, access memory directly and so on. I think arguments could me made that you don't need to worry about registers from a C level because the advancement of compilers is good enough to provide an optimal solution, and that with the advancement in JIT compilation you don't need to optimize memory access because again, the compiler can do a better job than most bone headed programmers (think they can).
It's nice that in C you can embed assembly code to optimize some algorithm. Likewise, it's nice that in C# you can use C++/CLI to embed C++(C and asm) into your .net application, and therefore can do a lot of what you may be missing in C#.
