Re: [stella] OT: Programming, CS theory

Subject: Re: [stella] OT: Programming, CS theory
From: KhrysSun@xxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 06:08:14 EDT
I have no CS degree and I learn to program with books. I discover computer programming reading science magazines when I was 14. I found this stuff so fantastic that I learn the BASIC reading the codes printed into those science magazines.... while dreaming the day I'll have my first computer to write my first games.
I owned a C64 3 years later.  and I jumped into langage machine immediatly...  many years later I learn Pascal and C++.

As I said I have no CS degree but I find this topic interesting as I can compare the results of my programming experience with theory.... Just for fun.

THEORY: Recursion is great!
My P.O.V. : I find Recursion fun to play with, but I rerely use it.

THEORY: Avoid the use of global variables, only use local variables!
My P.O.V. : I prefer to use less variables declarations as possible.
                Using locasl, usually, make the code Loud to read.
                I think it's easier to use globals for code                                               
                But, it's necessary to use Global variables wisely, so to
                avoid to be lost into the vars to use temporally and the
                others I place a underscore in front of the temp vars :  

THEORY: Never use GOTO statements!
My P.O.V. : I never (or very rarely) use goto when programming In
                 I Use it to optimize the code when programming in
                 machine language.

THEORY: Never learn to program in BASIC, it ruins your brain and
               prevents you from learning how to program "properly"
My P.O.V. : I don't agree, each language own it's logic programming.
               So I don't approach a problem the same way when
                programming in C++ or in Machine Language.
               (I'am always surprised to notice how a (low base) function
               is much more compact/easiest to write in machine language
               compare to C++

THEORY: You can combine several statements together, like
for(++i;i<lseek(fp)) {i+=lseek(fp+i)};
My P.O.V. : Not the best way to have an easy to read code.
                 To use in the small programs only.

>>Erik :
> The one thing BASIC has done to me is make me unable to program
> in C++ without constantly tripping over the syntax.  I can't logically
> follow the trails of braces and ampersands and the "maybe it'll
> work if I put the asterisk _here_" factor.  No matter what style
> of indenting and braces you use, I'll never follow it as closely as
> I can IF,THEN, END IF.  FOR/NEXT is much more intuitive than
> for (;;) {} .

I think everything becomes natural when practicing enough and have a clear idea of the syntax. When programming in C++, just forget the BASIC and don't try to compare the 2 language... it will be easier.     

my advice : Imagine you are reading a book, and consider { }; as a paragraph and have a visual look on it to understand the code.
so ...
if (a==b) {
              if (b<10) {
              else        {
...become immediatly very easy to understand for

the asterisk : * is used pointers (I think that's wahtt you are talking about.
Consider that it refers to the address, not the var itself.

hope this help.
Current Thread