Thread: Biased professors teaching antiquated crap

Is this a recurring theme in college?

In my data structures class (in Java, which is fine by me, memory management is a hell of a lot easier when you don't have to free memory), the teacher said a few things that I thought were off.

First, he talked about using vectors in java, despite how they are now deprecated in the API (ArrayLists are now preferred). Second, he described bools in C++ as "just an enumeration." (although they may have been implemented that way years ago in bool.h, that is before my time) I believe they are as much a part of standard C++ as booleans are of Java. Finally, he said a code fragment like this would cause a runtime error (this is java), like a hanging reference in C/C++ (returning a pointer to a variable on the stack in a local function).

Code:

static int func() {
		for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
		return i;
}

I instead thought it would be a compile time error, as i is simply out of scope, to which he responded "That would be nice, but I don't think it happens that way." On my compiler, indeed, it causes a compile time error.

I don't see anything wrong with this in terms of C/C++

Code:

int func() {
		for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
		return i;
}

int main()
{
	int i = func();
	printf("%d",i);
	return 0;
}

Must be different in JAVA?

int func() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
return i;
}

It's a scope error in ANSI C++. You don't realize it, because you use the wonderful Microsoft compilers, which the nonstandard for scope.

int func() {

for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
// By the standard, i is limited to this scope
}
// Using MSVC, i is in this scope
return i; // legal in MSVC, illegal for standard compiler
}

I was trying to refer this (least legal to compile) C/C++ runtime error which the professor was trying to explain that simply does not exist in java.

int* func() {
int i = 10;
return &i;
}

About the deprecated thing.... It's pretty saddening. The guy gets paid to lecture about data structures and is using deprecated data structures himself.

I'm glad I have a good compiler. I don't have to put up with nonesense. I still don't think it's scope is the loop though because it is only defined once.

MSVC? Whats that?

Admittedly, MSVC is the friendliest IDE I've used. Still, it's standard support is crap.

http://www.flipcode.com/cgi-bin/msg....rum=totd&id=-1

I don't use MSVC because your right, it's standard support isn't good enough, that's why I use VS.NET. Much better IDE than MSVC and full standard support.

It depends on how old your C++ compiler is, and whether it is designed to implement the old or new C++ standard.

Code:

int func() {
   // code
   for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
   return i;
}

In the old C++ standard, the scope of 'i' was the rest of the function, as if you had done...

Code:

int func() {
   // code
   int i;
   for (i = 0; i < 10; i++);
   return i;
}

The new C++ standard tightened up the rules a bit, and specified that the scope of 'i' is just the for loop.

Code:

int func() {
   // code
   {
      int i;
      for (i = 0; i < 10; i++);
   }
   return i;
}

For instance, I get a warning when I compile this function, but it otherwise compiles fine. You should at least get a warning from the compiler if it's supposed to meet the latest C++ standard.

I could run the code as managed code using the CLR or else as unmanaged code. Unfortunately I have not had time to figure out which menu choice I need to select to turn on the controls for managed code, infact I have not needed to use that yet because I'm just studying the language, but in the future I'm likely to write all my code that way.

You know full well that you can set the warning level. God damn, where is that button? Aww, I'm going to sleep. I'll look into it when I get up.

I have not been hindered yet by VS.NET at least not when solving bigger issues. I do have enough patience to understand my compiler. I don't intend on using any other compiler.

It sounds like that teacher isn't too terrible. If you think that's bad than you are in for a shock. Take a subject like physics for example. Wait till you get a physics teacher that doesn't know what he/she is doing! If you know more than them than don't worry about it. Do not try to correct them but instead keep it to yourself and study the book. Those teachers are not there to teach the newest and the best techniques. They are hired by the government to make sure that students meet a certain level of standard, not the highest level. If you try to correct them too much than you will not enjoy the class. Take it as a chance to continue to study on your own because shortly after you are done you will have to work and there won't be any time like there is now to study independantly.

I am taking physics as well, but I had already taken AP Physics (looking at the syllabus, I know probably 80-85% of matieral already, but I am weak with waves, and taking the next class without a completely solid base is probably not a good idea). The physics teacher is good though. He said nothing during the first lecture that had a hint of being wrong, and knew a LOT of stuff I didn't.

The worst case is when you have a teacher that doesn't speak english. I mean that. Somehow they get the job. I once had a physics teacher that didn't know what he was doing. The lectures were junk but he than made the midterm and final really easy to make up for the fact that nobody understood what was going on. Only in a big school.

Yeah, that could definitely be a problem. Fortunetely, all my professors thus far speak English well.

We have recitations (smaller classes with a TA) once a week which are supposed to help offset having professors like that. But yup, I hope I don't get any professor's who can't really speak English.