Re:Lisp and Smalltalk are dead: It’s C all the way down
by erlanger on Friday August 14, 2009 @09:10PM
(#764191)
> Are you seriously trying to suggest that understanding the concepts behind C teach you the concepts behind how Ruby works, just because Ruby has a runtime written in C?
That sounds reasonable to me...certainly not ripe for a "seriously?" label. Of course knowing C would help one to understand how Ruby, Python, etc. work, just like knowing assembler helps one to understand what C is doing. Rich languages like these don't just happen out of the blue.
Re:Lisp and Smalltalk are dead: It’s C all the way down
by smithjchris on Saturday August 15, 2009 @04:57AM
(#764552)
You need to understand C to understand how Ruby works via observation. Observation and reverse-engineering visually is more important than you think. Understanding programs and being at one with them is the true path to enlightenment, not poking several different languages down your throat.
They should however understand theory and implementation separately. Implementation should be the most common form.
People forget that you need a job when you leave university.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that understanding the concepts behind C teach you the concepts behind how Ruby works, just because Ruby has a runtime written in C? If not, what are you getting at?
"That's why they should teach it over Lisp/Scheme/Smalltalk/etc etc."
Are you seriously trying to suggest that Computer Science students should learn only one language, or only closely related languages?
That is the part that bugs me. That GT is deciding that their Computer Science students are too dumb to learn more than one kind of language. I wish someone at that school had read Joel's rant about "Java schools."