Re:C for All
by zodiac on Monday March 26, 2018 @08:33AM
(#16678343)
I personally really hated the use of uC++ and would have loved to do the whole course in some MIPS dialect. I really liked how through most of second year the only language reference I really needed to look at fit on one piece of paper (https://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~cs241/mips/mipsref.pdf). The uC++ language, on the other hand, is not specified anywhere except in the enormous 600 page textbook, and even then very far from fully specified (e.g. there was a builtin function called rendezvous-something, where that string literally only appeared in the book once, and it was not defined at that place)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:C for All
by filereaper on Monday March 26, 2018 @04:43PM
(#16682396)
I'd argue that's the point of moving from a 2nd year course to a 3rd year one. You incrementally add more complexity. The ISO C++ spec is a similar heavy tome.