| User | Post |
Ramsus
Posts: 21/162 |
Considering that early systems used punch cards and later switch tables for input and lots of LEDs for output, you couldn't "write" code on a computer anyway. It wasn't until the 70s that glass teletypes came into use. |
neotransotaku
Posts: 1976/4016 |
yeah, back in the old days, space was everything, so wasting space was not an option and therefore, where did they have to write? but I guess the point of the remark is due to that today computers are plentiful and why they aren't a bigger part of certain exams is the question here |
Hyde
Posts: 16/24 |
Originally posted by Jesper
Writing code on paper is possibly worse than trying to evaluate people's artistic skills by having them use MS Paint, or trying to evaluate people's skills in war by having them play Counter-Strike.
No, it's just a good way of knowing whether you know a specific language, or even if you know programming in general. Prior to the construction of the first compiler/assembler, how do you think people programmed? That's right, using nothing more than bits and bytes. Before they got on the computer, however, they had to plan everything out carefully. |
Ramsus
Posts: 16/162 |
I'm just a hobbyist programmer, and I think it didn't seem too bad until they threw in the MIPS stuff. I'm sure the students study enough so they don't have any trouble with it. Well, okay...
'Question 8: Floating Point Debate (8 points |
neotransotaku
Posts: 1969/4016 |
after thinking about it some more, i asked myself--how much do you really need the computer? here is an example where you'd possibly need the computer in one section of the test: http://hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu/student/online/cs/61C/2004/fa-1.pdf
you can peruse the other tests here:
http://hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu/student/onlineexams.shtml
Only the following classes are comparable to the community college level
+ CS61a - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
+ CS61b - Data Structures
+ CS61c - Machine Structures
|
Ramsus
Posts: 9/162 |
How horrible. My handwriting isn't really fast, and I have a tendency to write everything in cursive, so doing a handwritten CS exam would suck -- especially if it was a really strict language with a lot of forced declarations and such. If they're just grading the algorithm and structure though, then it wouldn't be as bad.
At least it makes you think ahead before you start writing. |
Jesper
Posts: 1748/2390 |
Writing code on paper is possibly worse than trying to evaluate people's artistic skills by having them use MS Paint, or trying to evaluate people's skills in war by having them play Counter-Strike. |
Jizuko
Posts: 1027/1191 |
Well, I thought the worst about writing code on paper would be the syntax errors, it was to a degree. But the absolutely worst thing was when you started writing a bit, a paper or so, then you find out that you need to add a declaration of a variabel in the start of the procedure, so you go back, and gasp, there's not enough space (and it should be nice and tidy on exams, not writing arrows "Uh and this should go here" and such) and then you have to erase everything and start over. I had to do that a few times  |
Gavin
Posts: 403/799 |
because math is a universal language, and theories can transcende any single subject.
i was only joking about the useless theory comment  |
Squash Monster
Posts: 513/677 |
Sometmes my school doesn't let students use the computers during exams even though they easily have enough. There are just too many ways to cheat using a computer: remember, half the students who take these classes have cheated on every test where they've had access to a graphing calculator since sixth grade. The reaction around here is way out of proportion: it's not like they're completely seperating the use of a computer from a class about computers, they're just keeping them away from the exams.
As for those abstract theories, I think they're much more useful than anything else in the feild. I'd much rather learn Bresenham's line algorithm or A* or recursion than one of the subtle nuances of a single programing language. |
neotransotaku
Posts: 1965/4016 |
yet, the irony here is without those abstract things and useless theories there would be no CS to begin with--anywhere |
Gavin
Posts: 399/799 |
Originally posted by neotransotaku
From what I've learned at Berkeley, computer science is the art of breaking down problems into managable pieces and not programming.
sounds like another great example of college taking what could have been a usefull and practical class and turning it into a study about abstract and useless theories 
(well not really, but i like to hate. Community college all the way!) |
neotransotaku
Posts: 1964/4016 |
none taken.
Historically, computer science stems from math and you don't need computers to teach math. In addition, computer science--fundamentally--has nothing to do with computers at all. Everything about it revolves around the notion of abstraction and building systems with abstraction. It just turns out that many applications of computer science is computer related but it isn't restricted to just that.
From what I've learned at Berkeley, computer science is the art of breaking down problems into managable pieces and not programming.
|
Dish
Posts: 247/596 |
Originally posted by neotransotaku
Hmm, Berkeley, Stanford, and MIT does that (make you write code on paper).
That's completely stupid. I go to a freaking community college and they let you use a computer. You'd think big universities that cost a million dollars for students to attend would be better equipped than a community college that any shmuck with $100 and a diploma can attend.
I think the problem more is not having enough computers to facilitate the tests.
If they're funded by the state... I could see the problem. But these schools charge the students an arm and a leg to attend. There should be no reason why they say "sorry, I know you paid these thousands and thousands of dollars for this semester -- but we don't have enough money to be using computers in this computer class, you have to use paper and pen instead". That's just rediculous.
Even then, syntax errors are usually not docked
So proper syntax isn't even checked? What the hell are they even teaching?
that is where a computer really is handy (checking for syntax errors).
You're right. That's why they should use them
In addition, certain tests are open book, open notes--so, if that is the case, then a computer really can't be allowed now, can it?
I don't see why not. If it's open book/notes... why not be able to use a computer? How does that change anything?
Note: Hostility not directed towards you, I apologize in advance if I seem irritable... but I can't believe how incredibly stupid that is. Teaching Computer Science without a computer is like teaching an English class without literature -- it just doesn't work. |
neotransotaku
Posts: 1962/4016 |
Hmm, Berkeley, Stanford, and MIT does that (make you write code on paper). I dunno about the other CS schools though. I think the problem more is not having enough computers to facilitate the tests. Even then, syntax errors are usually not docked--that is where a computer really is handy (checking for syntax errors). In addition, certain tests are open book, open notes--so, if that is the case, then a computer really can't be allowed now, can it? |
Dish
Posts: 246/596 |
Originally posted by Jizuko
(well, dunno if I passed it, writing code on paper is a BITCH)
The fact that they'd even consider making you write out code is rediculous. What the hell kind of school are you going to? What school teaches people to operate computers without actually using a computer? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. |
Zem
Posts: 631/1107 |
Originally posted by Jizuko
(well, dunno if I passed it, writing code on paper is a BITCH)
Oh, man, I can relate to that. At one point I had the kind of job where you just need to be somewhere for a long time in case something happens, and I figured I'd work on some of my code, and it took me like five pages on paper to get the smallest amount.  |
Jizuko
Posts: 1013/1191 |
I just finished a Procedurall Programming course (well, dunno if I passed it, writing code on paper is a BITCH) but the coding itself was pretty easy, we also had to do JSP added to the code though. (Jacksson Structured Programming).
I think I'll be doing OOP soon though, like, next semester or so. Only time I've worked with that before is when I briefly worked with php5. |
dan
Posts: 353/782 |
To me, object orientated programming makes a program a lot more manageable. I remember my old procedural-based programs, which were hell to follow.
That said, I'm not some kind of OOP evangelist or anything like that. I still use some global variables, as Delphi allows me to do so, and it was the only way I could get my programs to compile at the time. (I now know the proper OOP way, but I am just too lazy to fix it ) |
Squash Monster
Posts: 511/677 |
I love object oriented programming  . (And I use Java.)
I do most of my programming for games, and it feels very natural to just set up a big class to hold all of the different aspects of the game and tell them each to go do their thing. I find it much preferable to the ol' array of x coords, array of y coords, and for loop with all of the code for each different things in the game.
My only problem with object oriented coding is that it makes me too excited about being able to make re-usable classes, and I waste a bunch of time trying to minimize the number of classes that have project-specific code. Then again, I'll probably think that psuedo-flaw is the greatest thing since the for loop as soon as I've been doing object oriented coding long enough to start actually re-using those classes. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
