Sadly, I never watched that show, but some of my friends did (I do recall them mentioning the Soup Nazi, among other things). I always was kind of the odd guy out (ever seen the movie Wargames?), and our family only watched TV on the weekends.
That was actually pretty funny, made me want to see more. I'll see if I can get it on Amazon or something.
A hint. My first programs were written for HP TSB when I was at school. We used an ASR33 teletype at 110 baud remote connected via a modem to the computer location several miles away..... and playing star-trek when we should have been programming! (luckily the teacher at the time responsible for this didn't have a clue) Ah the good old, bad old days!
I don't even know why you'd think those things would affect me. Nothing on this account is connected to me and I obviously wouldn't write it down in my resume.
If you mean that I shouldn't have cheated or something like that, those math classes were useless anyway. Way too specific to get anything out of them - would have forgotten anything I learned in a week tops. Plus, I coded most of the applications that did the math for me, so it's not like I didn't understand the formulas and their uses.
The final I decided not to do was just some dumb console application game uses ncurses library. I don't remember the details too much, but I believe that there were two versions of the library, one for Linux and such and another for Windows. So I couldn't even run the skeleton code natively on my computer. I'd need a VM or such, which I have, but at the time I didn't have anything like that setup. The professor pissed me off - I almost started ranting right now but how awful he was.
This is not to mention that it was a class about studying algorithms - so the final being to use a library we never touched before to make a CSGO style 2D console game didn't even make sense and literally came out of no where. I don't know anyone in the class who finished it let alone had it working - he just threw As at everyone who "tried". I assume I could have done it but I didn't even read the PDF for the stupid thing. Oops, almost ranted again.
Bunch of old geezers! I can glimpse into what I'll be doing on this website in 15 years if it's still alive then.
Too much C++ to know all of it, just gotta figure parts of it out when you specifically need it usually.
Do you have professors that you like? Or at least tolerate?
Plenty, though the ones that are dumb or bad outnumber the ones I like or tolerate. I mean seriously, you don't need to do more than attend a couple of these lectures to realize that they're full of shit - and I mean all professors I've had and not just CS ones. My English professors were surprisingly nice to deal with among many other professors for many classes.
Since I don't have an issue with the good professors, there's nothing to rant about with them! For example, my Assembly professor was a-ok, nice guy. He could have been better, but I'm not complaining. I can think of a couple other CS professors I had that I either don't have a problem with or were tolerable.
But most of them, holy shit balls. I literally had a professor who would sag in front of the class and stood there wondering why his beginner level C++ code wouldn't compile. The university must have known he was unqualified and put him there to weed out the weak.
I could literally write a book if I didn't stop myself.
When I did my CS degree, all our lectures had doctorates and did research in their chosen speciality. So all of them actually did as well as taught. We used Pascal/Fortran 77 and the lecturer had written Pascal and Fortran compilers! The Algol 68 lecturer was in the process of implementing an Algol 68 compiler. Thos os and compiler lectures were researching topics in these areas etc etc etc.
So I guess I was lucky in the University I attended. But that was a long, long time ago and things have probably changed since then...
But I sympathise about having bad teachers. My A level CS teacher was absolutely useless. He couldn't program! We had to learn programming ourselves. For things like hashing etc he brought in a friend from the local college to teach it - as he didn't know it. Ahh...
One of my CS professors from the semester I just finished was pretty knowledgeable and actually wrote compilers and whole programming languages. It was nice to have a professor who didn't seem like a hack, but he was too "you have to prove everything".
That was the first CS professor I had who seemed to be qualified enough for the job, but I couldn't get past his thought process. Too limited - always wanted evidence for every little thing. Dissed C++ because the syntax wasn't made with evidence. Millions of people program in C++ - and I don't really run into people complaining about syntax. I only hear its a hard language to learn - which syntax isn't the reason for.
I actually made a small remark on how with so many people coding in C++, it must be a good language. He swiftly shot that down as a fallacy which I knew he would. The "everyone can't be wrong!" fallacy. But if you want to know if the language's syntax is good, you should really be asking the people who program in it, and not seeing if beginners are failing to add parentheses in their if statements (god forbid a programming language require parentheses for if statement boolean expressions!). And I questioned a lot of those studies - if those "beginner" programmers were exposed to python *first*, then clearly they'd likely have a hard time getting use to C++ syntax.
Millions of people program in C++ - and I don't really run into people complaining about syntax. I only hear its a hard language to learn - which syntax isn't the reason for.
I mean, I agree that C++'s syntax is not its problem when it comes to learning it, but let's be honest. The syntax gets increasingly ridiculous with each revision because the designers don't want to add any new keywords nor any sequence of tokens that could be mistaken with an already existing construct in the given context.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think these decisions are perfectly understandable given the constraints involved, but I wish the committee would some day realize that a C++ compiler running in the latest version of the language doesn't need to be able to compile code from twenty or thirty years ago to be useful. As long as everything link together we can manage.
There's a difference between a 'good language'/'good syntax' and 'popular language'. Good syntax is a theoretical concept in language design involving lots of analysis re ll(n), lr(n), lalr etc. C++ is a nightmare to parse. VS still has some issues with SFINAE. Compare C++ parsing to say Pascal parsing. One of the reasons C++ is popular is that it is derived from c (and many/most c programs still compile with C++ with no/small changes - but they are deviating). Back when, programmers slowly adapted to C++ by changing c programs, writing nearly c programs with just a small class etc etc. There's now several 'modern' languages that aim to provide similar capabilities to C++ but with no historical baggage (eg Haskell, swift, Rust). They generally get a small group of devotees but not big traction in the wider programming community. Compiled C++ code is very, very efficient don't forget.
I think these decisions are perfectly understandable given the constraints involved, but I wish the committee would some day realize that a C++ compiler running in the latest version of the language doesn't need to be able to compile code from twenty or thirty years ago to be useful
They probably figured that many companies and such wouldn't upgrade their compilers if it meant needing to rewrite a lick of code. But yea, I've seen how messy it can get :/. Though my professor only showed studies for beginners struggling, and I just couldn't find any of what he was saying to be reasonable or compelling at all. Not every detail needs some evidence behind it - people will get use to the language as they code in it.
There's a difference between a 'good language'/'good syntax' and 'popular language'.
Yea, but I meant that the syntax can't be awful if the language is popular, has alternatives, and complaints about it aren't the norm.
Its funny that you bring up Haskell, since the professor would always diss on functional programming languages. The people who make it claim big things for a functional paradigm, but they have no evidence to support that it's a good thing - he says. I didn't get past the 5 minute mark when trying to learn Haskell and other functional programming languages, so I don't actually know. But he was pretty hostile towards the claims around functional programming.
Haskell seems like would be great to write a compiler in, since you can structure it as a series of filters that each operates on the output of the last. Yet, to my knowledge, nobody writes compilers in functional languages. LLVM, which is among the most modern compiler suites, is written in C++ of all things. As far removed from Haskell as it gets.
It seems to me like functional needs imperative more than imperative needs functional, hence why you pretty much need monads in Haskell to do anything useful, yet it's only been in the last 20 years that imperative languages have started to incorporate functional features.