You really need to scroll down. Or you will keep missing the forest for the trees.Originally Posted by Dave11
Anyways, I was more inspired to thinking I could be wrong by Phantomotap argument that there are studies indicating an increase in C++ projects. TIOBE index is too weak as it opens itself too much to correlation.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Again, back in 2002, C++ defenitly was the dominating language. other languages did make their share out of the interest - cake. so yes, the interest in C++ has decresed but so for Java and PHP. this is organic flow that more languages = the interest share spilts more. and yes, the interest in C++ has decreased because many people prefere someting simple and trendy.
so what? the precentage of interest in C++ is still the third, and even climbed from last year score.
I don't think new or existing project count is a very good indicator. There are too many unknowns; how much weight does a projects size, maintainer count, usage, age, update frequency, etc carry?
I wasn't very convinced, even because the explanation as to how those values were found isn't very convincing. However, if to be believed, a factual increase of the number of worldwide projects in C++ must count for something. Regardless of project size, relevance and, to a more limited extent, the people involved.
Ok.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
The trend is downwards though, but then as can be seen from the same graph it could be a local minimum, and in fact the previous local minimum was the reason for the October 2014 ranking for C++ to be fourth rather than third.
Anyway, my guess for the rating and hence ranking of C on this index would be that, along with Java, it remains a popular choice for introductory programming languages in educational institutions, hence we get far more beginner questions for C than for C++.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
I think that part of the reason we get more C questions than C++ questions might be the name of the board "cprogramming.com". cplusplus.com seems to get predominately C++ questions and seems much more active than this site.
Jim
Perspective is a profound word, and I appreciate yours (all advanced); now, mine. Without question, ad-nauseum diatribe of basic questions and students seeking code fix with zero personal effort, well, sucks. We (some beginners) get it. Please remember, however, not everyone who studies programming does so in bootcamp, university or geek peer group. Much is learned by studying text, tutorial and problems; but, without some level of feedback from programming community, much is also missed. I use cboard to fill that gap.
All advanced, please remember there is personal and collective value in sharing knowledge, and a beginner question does not always infer incompetence.
TL;DR:
We know.
But, to be worth the effort and interest to "advanced" members too, the site needs "advanced questions" as well. I personally am wondering where the heck such questions are being posed; and slightly afraid that asking such questions has become rarer now because shipping fast and often is more important than technical quality.
My first programs were copied from magazines, painstakingly, line by line. I learned not to try the program halfway through without saving it the hard way. The only reference I had was the Commodore 64 manual. Later on, after I got my first '286 PC -- a Hyundai clone with a whopping 40 megabyte hard drive, of which 32 was accessible! --, saved up for a modem, to painstakingly download Ralf Brown's Interrupt List.
My first commercial program was a system of generating and embedding a serial number to a program I didn't get the source code to. I had to compare two binaries with different serials to locate the serial number itself.. I replaced the relocation code in the executable files with my own, optimized version -- except that it also regenerated and compared the serial numbers. Not having enough money to buy TASM, I did it using MS-DOS debug, which is a feat I'm still a bit proud. News like this feel more than a bit insulting, because some of us old folks did that over two decades ago, and got paid, too.
All this is just to say, I hear you. (I think I wouldn't be wrong if I wrote, we hear you, but I don't want to put words into the mouths of others oldsters here.)
I personally never recommend any specific programming guides for new learners, because I didn't have any when I started. I did get formal education in programming later on in the University, which is definitely a plus -- I most enjoyed algorithms (although I found Mark Allen Weiss' Algorithm Analysis in C on my own), and although the mathematical analysis involved in algorithm complexity analysis is dull, it has been surprisingly useful on occasion.
Yet, I myself definitely do my best work in a group. A mixed group, including both main genders, with just partially overlapping strengths, seems to be optimal. The way I learned was definitely not "optimal" in any way; it only worked for me, because I was interested and didn't have that much else to do at the time (dark long winters above the Arctic Circle and all).
Having a place to ask, wonder, question freely, is definitely better.
Having such a place, and one where your person -- age, gender, physical detail or looks, skin color, native language, political views -- does not matter, and we can concentrate on the issues at hand, is nothing short of wonderful.
Of course not. However, many (not even most, just many) people find it easier to post a question -- often to multiple programming boards -- rather than read through the tutorials to find the answer. This is the reason boards like this require the asker to show their effort first.
Incompetence does not come into the picture at all, really. It is a matter of whether the asker is genuinely trying to learn and find an answer, and spending the requisite effort, or if they're just trying to get their homework/work done by others with the least effort spent by themselves.
(Those who answer, now that's a completely different ball game. Not acknowledging their errors in their statements (or worse yet, silently deleting their post about it), is an especially sore point for me, and gets me furious.)
I'm conflicted whether to agree (because the statement is true), disagree (because the personal value in sharing knowledge is a complex question in real life, and would require a bit of game theory to actually hash out), or be offended (because asking someone to remember they stand on the shoulders of giants, insinuates they have forgotten that fact, and are guilty of hubris).
I do love helping others to learn. Obviously, so do others, too; the amount of help that Laserlight and others provide is nothing short of astonishing.
However, for personal reasons, my capability/capacity to help new programmers is very limited. I freely admit, I am a member here mostly because difficult algorithmic/programming questions are like a drug to me; I am addicted. Unlike physical substances, solving such questions bolsters my self-image, and give me energy to do more (especially the day-to-day mundane stuff).
What's more, I get to learn new stuff, too!
I do occasionally help new programmers, but mostly only if I see I might be able to make an impact large enough to make it worthwhile to more people than just the two of us (the asker, and myself). I definitely try to write my answers so that they don't cover just the particular case the asker is asking, but also some of the similar cases, too. And not just show the solution, but also show how, and why, I arrived at the solution.
If there are no intriguing questions, I would be unable to participate here. Not because I don't care, but because it would not be possible for me; instead of being a positive experience, it would be a plain drain on my time and mental resources, with little to no positives.
The moment when a learner truly groks a new concept is glorious, and definitely gives me an energy boost, but it is too rare to occur in the midst of a problem discussion to be a truly balancing factor. Typically, answers and hints here cause the Heureka! moment to occur later on, offline. Not any less important, but it just does not give the feedback I'd need.
Respect or adulation is not a factor for me. My familial and cultural background is such that I perceive humanity "flat"; the conception of one person being "above" or "more important" than another is just ridiculous to me. (Except for children, because they need protection and nurture to grow into fully capable adults; and have unknown potential.)
A simple "thanks" is enough, although a note that describes an Heureka! moment (and shortly outlines it, not just for me but for others, too) is what I really hope for.
(As an aside: A person should not be respected for their knowledge anyway in the typical sense of the word. Knowledge should be tested, questioned, at all times. Logic, and informative, clear, and robust algorithms and logical structures (those that effectively hold against even unexpected questions) are definitely valuable and might warrant respect, though. Respect the work, not the person, is what I'm saying.)
I would bet real money that I am not an exception. I'm weird, sure, but I bet many "advanced" members share some or most of my points above.
o_O
O_o
Bad wording? I dunno.
I'll work with anyone with any gender. Having clearly masculine and clearly feminine types present in the group seems to yield better results.
(Compared to, say a group where everyone tries hard to be politically correct and keep their gender and sex out of every issue they discuss or encounter.)
However, I do not mean that my group should only contain clearly male or clearly female people; just that in my view, the overall performance and dynamic is better if there are at least one each to cover the extremes. Lots of room for everyone else in the middle, no matter how they define their genders.
Also, note that I'm not talking about how people present themselves socially, I am talking about how they actually perceive and approach problems and solutions. Gender affects that.
Understood. If a site is not readily available, maybe someone should spear head the effort? Maybe it wouldn't be utilized; evolution.We know.
But, to be worth the effort and interest to "advanced" members too, the site needs "advanced questions" as well. I personally am wondering where the heck such questions are being posed; and slightly afraid that asking such questions has become rarer now because shipping fast and often is more important than technical quality.
LOL. That's a little how I feel using this "Learn C in One Hour a Day" text. It is so abbreviated, it feels like solving a puzzle. Maybe a better book was/is recommended.My first programs were copied from magazines, painstakingly, line by line. I learned not to try the program halfway through without saving it the hard way. The only reference I had was the Commodore 64 manual. Later on, after I got my first '286 PC -- a Hyundai clone with a whopping 40 megabyte hard drive, of which 32 was accessible! --, saved up for a modem, to painstakingly download Ralf Brown's Interrupt List.
That kind of painful work builds deep knowledge. #respectMy first commercial program was a system of generating and embedding a serial number to a program I didn't get the source code to. I had to compare two binaries with different serials to locate the serial number itself.. I replaced the relocation code in the executable files with my own, optimized version -- except that it also regenerated and compared the serial numbers. Not having enough money to buy TASM, I did it using MS-DOS debug, which is a feat I'm still a bit proud. News like this feel more than a bit insulting, because some of us old folks did that over two decades ago, and got paid, too.
Thank you for taking this attitude. Willingness for experts to listen to novices demonstrates personal character and indicates they are true learners.All this is just to say, I hear you. (I think I wouldn't be wrong if I wrote, we hear you, but I don't want to put words into the mouths of others oldsters here.)
I would rethink this statement. Someone in your position can quickly assess the utility of current learning tools and direct new learners to the best resources. This is an efficient process: efficient for the new learner, and efficient for the expert as he/she better replicates knowledge. Also, just because grandpa walked to and from school, uphill, 7 miles each way -- in the snow, every day -- doesn't mean grandkid should do the same two generations later when mankind can control weather patterns, harness iron machinery and generally has better methods to carry on with the ennui of "living".I personally never recommend any specific programming guides for new learners, because I didn't have any when I started.
Jealous!I did get formal education in programming later on in the University, which is definitely a plus -- I most enjoyed algorithms (although I found Mark Allen Weiss' Algorithm Analysis in C on my own), and although the mathematical analysis involved in algorithm complexity analysis is dull, it has been surprisingly useful on occasion.
All this means is you are a geek which means "awesome", "wizard" and "rules the word" in Webster 2015.Yet, I myself definitely do my best work in a group. A mixed group, including both main genders, with just partially overlapping strengths, seems to be optimal. The way I learned was definitely not "optimal" in any way; it only worked for me, because I was interested and didn't have that much else to do at the time (dark long winters above the Arctic Circle and all).Also, "main genders" is in fact a correct differentiation in our 2015 gender-bender society (USA).
100% agree!Having a place to ask, wonder, question freely, is definitely better.
Having such a place, and one where your person -- age, gender, physical detail or looks, skin color, native language, political views -- does not matter, and we can concentrate on the issues at hand, is nothing short of wonderful.
Yes, I understand. I feel the same way. Also, the answers others provide don't have the same impact when someone hasn't spent some time trying to solve the problem themselves, first. A drink of water is always beneficial, but one really appreciates when he/she is truly thirsty.Of course not. However, many (not even most, just many) people find it easier to post a question -- often to multiple programming boards -- rather than read through the tutorials to find the answer. This is the reason boards like this require the asker to show their effort first.
Incompetence does not come into the picture at all, really. It is a matter of whether the asker is genuinely trying to learn and find an answer, and spending the requisite effort, or if they're just trying to get their homework/work done by others with the least effort spent by themselves.
(Those who answer, now that's a completely different ball game. Not acknowledging their errors in their statements (or worse yet, silently deleting their post about it), is an especially sore point for me, and gets me furious.)
The statement is true at first glance; then, potentially is false after deeper consideration of personal value of knowledge sharing; but, NEVER is offensive because said asker could not even type his statement or response without the giants who built the hardware and software he uses to communicate! No disrespect intended! He knows.I'm conflicted whether to agree (because the statement is true), disagree (because the personal value in sharing knowledge is a complex question in real life, and would require a bit of game theory to actually hash out), or be offended (because asking someone to remember they stand on the shoulders of giants, insinuates they have forgotten that fact, and are guilty of hubris).
Hmmm, maybe the above statement is not potentially false ..I do love helping others to learn. Obviously, so do others, too; the amount of help that Laserlight and others provide is nothing short of astonishing.
I could psycho-analyze here, but defer; you are just a good American who may find his intrinsic value in what he does. Cue religious discussion ... PC +1.However, for personal reasons, my capability/capacity to help new programmers is very limited. I freely admit, I am a member here mostly because difficult algorithmic/programming questions are like a drug to me; I am addicted. Unlike physical substances, solving such questions bolsters my self-image, and give me energy to do more (especially the day-to-day mundane stuff).
Thanks, remember Euclid365BCE in those occasional moments.What's more, I get to learn new stuff, too!
I do occasionally help new programmers, but mostly only if I see I might be able to make an impact large enough to make it worthwhile to more people than just the two of us (the asker, and myself). I definitely try to write my answers so that they don't cover just the particular case the asker is asking, but also some of the similar cases, too. And not just show the solution, but also show how, and why, I arrived at the solution.
Targeted answers to targeted users is the answer.If there are no intriguing questions, I would be unable to participate here. Not because I don't care, but because it would not be possible for me; instead of being a positive experience, it would be a plain drain on my time and mental resources, with little to no positives.
The moment when a learner truly groks a new concept is glorious, and definitely gives me an energy boost, but it is too rare to occur in the midst of a problem discussion to be a truly balancing factor. Typically, answers and hints here cause the Heureka! moment to occur later on, offline. Not any less important, but it just does not give the feedback I'd need.
I love all of this. It's refreshing. As a society, let's get our collective mind off appearance and in to substance. Maybe the inner beauty would somehow radiate through us all and bring some measure of peace.Respect or adulation is not a factor for me. My familial and cultural background is such that I perceive humanity "flat"; the conception of one person being "above" or "more important" than another is just ridiculous to me. (Except for children, because they need protection and nurture to grow into fully capable adults; and have unknown potential.)
A simple "thanks" is enough, although a note that describes an Heureka! moment (and shortly outlines it, not just for me but for others, too) is what I really hope for.
(As an aside: A person should not be respected for their knowledge anyway in the typical sense of the word. Knowledge should be tested, questioned, at all times. Logic, and informative, clear, and robust algorithms and logical structures (those that effectively hold against even unexpected questions) are definitely valuable and might warrant respect, though. Respect the work, not the person, is what I'm saying.)
I would bet real money that I am not an exception. I'm weird, sure, but I bet many "advanced" members share some or most of my points above.
Last edited by Euclid365BCE; 10-17-2015 at 03:50 PM.
I did kind-of suggest one earlier.
Perhaps. It's not just that the way I learned was far from optimal, but I am not aware of the state of the art either -- as in, have any overall picture of the available resources for learners. I have full confidence that other members here, like Laserlight for example, can provide very good suggestions in this area.
Yes, exactly; and if accompanied with some information as to how to locate potable water in that biome, that information is more likely internalized too -- it turns into knowledge much easier.
This is an important point to anyone planning courses (or learning), too.
In the late nineties, I had an opportunity to help design a cluster of courses for a Finnish university department, for basic IT skills. (I did all of the technical work, but the overall design and pedagogical aspects were a group effort.) Instead of teaching "Word" and "Photoshop", the courses were basically a series of typical tasks students would have to be able to accomplish, and the material offered the "correct" approach to the tools you could use for your own advantage, minimizing effort for maximal results.
The solutions would start with an explanation of the concepts, mostly hidden as descriptions of how the programs typically work. (The design was, and in practice turned out to be true in majority of students, that they'd realize the solution almost-by-themselves at this point.)
Followed by the step by step example that includes the reasons for each step.
The courses themselves were optional attendance, but had a practical set of problems as the final test. The results were weird: the histogram looked like a valley. Well over half the students got full or almost full marks (easily 5 using one-to-five scale), some scattered ones in the middle, and a small hump at the got-almost-nothing-right section. It reflected exactly my experience in the workshop/lectures: most students were eager to learn how to save themselves so much effort, and make structured writing and image manipulation fun, but a small fraction hated the machines and just wanted me to tell them what buttons to push in order, so they could learn it by rote and get on with more interesting stuff.
In other words, in my experience, plain theory courses or books are unsatisfying/undepowered, when compared to problem-solving oriented courses and workshops. All theory is best shown/taught/learned when dealing with problems involving that theory. And finally, motivation is key. Without it, you have nothing.
In the science world, this is actually quite a topical problem. Most publications are closed-access; that is, you need to pay to be able to access current research. If the cost was directed towards more research, I and others could accept it, but in reality, the cost is only going to the coffers of a couple of huge publishers. Thus, the push for open access journals.
This also reflects on the complex issues of copyright. As programmers, one might prefer copyrights to remain in effect in perpetuity. Science, however, shows us that all new science -- and I am blatantly expanding that to all new creative content, because science is really not anything special to what humans do/create -- is based on what others have done thus far. Giving back to the pool of creation is therefore important.
I wish more people would realize this is an issue, and start to form their own opinion on copyrights and patents early, and from a wider-than-selfish viewpoint. Game theory works well here.
I AIN'T AMERICAN! I AM A FINN, AND PROUD OF IT!
As in from Finland, northern Europe, between Sweden, Norway, and Russia. Ahem.
[QUOTE=Nominal Animal;1242332]I did kind-of suggest one earlier.
I paused when I wrote that, and did consider you might not be; however, you sound so much like one, I said it! (Not sure if that is positive or inflammatory in your ears!)I AIN'T AMERICAN! I AM A FINN, AND PROUD OF IT!
As in from Finland, northern Europe, between Sweden, Norway, and Russia. Ahem.
Thanks for the geography lesson. :P
Love to hear about your experiences. You sound a lot like a professor: do you teach?
I found it funny, actually
Lectured, yes, some basic IT skills courses (the material for which I also developed, with a couple of other people), but it was years and years ago.)
I've been kind-of studying physics at Uni of Helsinki, Finland, for a couple of decades (lack of funds, and a couple of side careers making multi-year holes in it, though), and I'm only now finishing my BSc in physics and MSc in computational materials physics. I have both just about fulfilled, except for possibly some replacements due to expiry -- I've updated relevant courses to current requirements, but haven't verified all yet.
Oh, and I don't do psychoanalysis, cognitive behavioural therapy works better for me.
Touche'!Oh, and I don't do psychoanalysis, cognitive behavioural therapy works better for me.
