Computer Science

[Amanda Lee]

Absolutely and we were likewise required to write in structured form at the
IRS and had other standards which enabled us to effectively maintain code.

Now a couple of years ago when I reverse-engineered some old NYNEX
Assembler Code for Verizon, that was another story! Obscure, no comments
which indicated who updated and when, comments were not consistent so I
literally had to dig into the code to figure out what was going on.
Most of the code is written for a 360 and it doesn't utilize methods which
better utilize the 64-bit word ...  pretty scarey code!

Amanda Lee


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Villa" <rvilla1 at swbell.net>
To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Computer Science


Actually, you can do structured programming in assembly.  When I was
with the airlines, we were required to write all of the reservations
system programs in a structured way.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Bruce Noblick
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I couldn't resist jumping in here.  First, I miss assembler language
> programming.  I know it isn't standard, it doesn't lend itself to
structured
> techniques and all of that but it is how things eventually get done inside
> the computer and I guess that is what I like.  I have worked with IBM
> 360/370 assembler, Unisys 1100/2200/4800 assembler, PC assemblers back as
> far as the 8080 and Z80 with CP/M and of course the rest of the Intel
stuff
> under MSDOS and liked them all.  I know this list is supposed to be about
> other things but assembler language is so close to my heart that I
couldn't
> resist.
>
> Enjoy!
> Bruce
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amanda Lee" <amanda at shellworld.net>
> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Computer Science
>
>
> Amen! Richard, I miss it and would love to go back to coding and
maintaining
> Assembler code again!
>
> Amanda Lee
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Villa" <rvilla1 at swbell.net>
> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Computer Science
>
>
> I wonder when the last time anyone did any real programming not just
> coding using a language like assembler.
>
> I don't believe anyone knows what programming is until they have to
> write in an assembly language.
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Johan
> Bergström wrote:
>
> > In sweden the universities teach lisp/ada/c/c++ and other programming
> > languages. Not IDE's. At least the ones I know about. There are separate
> > windows programming classes, at some places, which are specially for
> > people who enjoy that kind of stuff, where they debug the windows kernel
> > using softice and stuff like that. They run most of their server in a
*nix
> > based enviroment.
> >
> > johbe
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Thomas Ward wrote:
> >
> > > Amanda so true. I am a CS student myself and I know exactly what my
> college
> > > teaches. They teach you Visual Basic, html with Javascript,  Visual
C++,
> MS
> > > SQL, MS Access, and you get the point.
> > > Almost everything is now Microsoft this, and Microsoft that. In fact
all
> the
> > > computers in the CS labs have Windows NT on them.
> > > They use to offer Unix C programming courses, but I don't think they
do
> any
> > > more. Been a while since I stepped into a class room, and when I went
> > > through they were just making the switch to MS everything.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Amanda Lee <amanda at shellworld.net>
> > > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:36 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Computer Science
> > >
> > >
> > > > Nope, Unix, Mainframes aren't standard anymore.  The college grads
we
> get
> > > > these days at Verizon have no clue what Unix or Mainframes are all
> about.
> > > > Everything is taught on a Windows-based Platform.  I believe JAVA is
> > > > taught, probably Visual Basic, Maybe sometimes C Language but
usually
> C
> > > > Plus Plus which was actually abandoned in the project I work on for
> > > > straight C Language.
> > > >
> > > > I would think in the future though, there will be a change back to
at
> > > > least teaching Linux since it can run on a less expensive platform.
> It's
> > > > pretty disgraceful how the content of Computer Sciences education
has
> been
> > > > degraded and these kids coming out have an ego bigger than life and
> think
> > > > they can take on the World in a day!
> > > >
> > > > They really struggle when they can't understand how to program and
the
> > > > quality of code coming out is pretty awful.  There is even this
> mentality
> > > > in the Corporate World which indicates that one can learn everything
> they
> > > > need to on the job and yet they can't figure out why  there are so
> many
> > > > problems with efficiency and the costs resulting from poor
efficiency.
> > > >
> > > > Amanda Lee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 jwantz at hpcc2.hpcc.noaa.gov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > > I'm not going to get involved in the "bookshare wars', but since
you
> > > were
> > > > > chastizing others on this list because most people use WINDOWS and
> not
> > > > > linux, I think its only fair to point out that your computer
science
> > > > > department is very nonstandard.  Though I am a meteorologist, not
a
> > > > > computer science person, I know many computer science students in
> the
> > > past
> > > > > and the present.  Teaching WINDOWS programming is very
nonstandard.
> I
> > > > > would guess that at least 90 percent of the schools teach
> programming on
> > > a
> > > > > UNIX variant of some kind.  In the past thre was a fair amount of
> people
> > > > > using VMS.  However, a lot of beginning C and C++ classes did use
> > > > > Turbo/Borland.  WINDOWS programming is much more difficult than
UNIX
> > > > > programming, so I suppose you are to be congratulated for making
it
> > > > > through such a tough curriculum.
> > > > >
> > > > >      Jim Wantz
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
> --
> It is better to give then to receive.  You don't believe me, just ask a
> boxer.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

--
It is better to give then to receive.  You don't believe me, just ask a
boxer.

Richard




_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup