(Software) engineering is an art. You don't design science.
Engineering is creative. It's a highly personal skill that must be honed through years of study and practice. Engineers have different personal styles, but stay "on-model" during collaborative work for consistency's sake. An engineer's best work is their "masterpiece". etc.
Engineering is the art of applying science to make technology. The different fields of engineering are like the different fields of art in that they use different mediums but are unified by the common principles of design.
My mother is a professional artist and it's amazing how similar our work really is.
>>I don't believe there can EVER be a case where the INVADERS get to claim 'just war'
>Were you for or against our involvement in the Balkans during the Clinton administration? That's >the closest modern day analogy.
Since the US was there on REQUEST of the U.N. and had no desire to take over anything or stay behind- merely to end an atrocity and restore peace to the region, I wouldn't call that an invasion at all. It was an involvement in a civil war - on REQUEST of the international community.
But I didn't have any say in the matter, I'm not an American.
>And... trick question: Were the Muslims the invaders or the defenders of the Levant?
I'd say in the vast majority of the crusades, they were the defenders.
>>In what whacked out place did you go to school that taught any different ?
>Oddly enough, I tend to read lots of primary and secondary sources and determine for myself if what the history being taught in school is accurate or not.
Well, I can't speak for the history books in your country but my country had just about as fundamentalist a government as you can GET when I went to school. Hell ALL school children were legally required to wear uniforms, private schools and homeschooling were banned -just to make sure nobody could skip the indoctrination. We had military training as part of the curiculim to prepare us to be good little soldiers... and WE were taught the crusades was a mistake by misguided leaders of the Christian faith. So were my parents, and THEIR parents. Seems that in most of the rest of the world, that's been at least the protestant consensus for a long time now.
>Believe it or not: America didn't win WWII all by itself, that Christopher Columbus really was a dick, and that the Communist Part of USA back in the McCarthy days really was an appendage of the Soviet Union.
Like I said, I'm not American - but I actually agree with a lot of what you said there. On the other hand, the witchhunt that McCarthy instituted against communism was still very wrong in my book. Sorry, communism is an opinion which your constitution is supposed to protect your right to hold - even if you don't like it.
Even though Skyhook does exactly the same thing Google is doing. But Skyhook created the location API licensed by Apple, so it's all OK.
What's the a) time spent in "primary school" compared to the US K-12 program, and b) technical competency compared to an American degree?
For instance, as I understand it the Hauptschule concept of Germany* focus more on having a technical job and the student is out of school by the age of 15 or 16. If you were in the US, you would not be allowed to leave HS at 15-16 even if all you wanted to do was be a skilled tradesman. If you did leave school that early, people would look down on you for a number of years. They also don't focus on the academic subjects, but rather on what it takes to be a good citizen.
Do you know many kids from your HS that would've been happy to stop at 10th and go get a job working on cars or something similar? I sure did (probably 20-30% of the kids in my graduating class would've been happy to be done sooner and go get a technical job).
Of the students I know who went towards Gymnaisum and Uni, they tended to come out after that 6+ with a Master's level competency.
I would say their systems are a lot better than ours.
* to pick on Germany, since I know some Germans well enough as any ignorant Amerikaner can.
I'll deny it it just to show it can be done.
There are tens of millions of lines of code in a variety languages that help run the world that were written and are maintained by hard working programmers who have never used C. There is also a lot of code that is written in C. It depends on where and what you are talking about.
The reality of the situation is that in industry there are a large number of camps. Some have huge repositories of code that is probably older than the OP that is mission critical and is still chugging along very well thank you very much. There are other places where the latest and greatest objected oriented, web based language invented at a University is the vogue. You have everything in between.
Saying one particular language is that basis of computing displays a very limited knowledge of the wide breadth and depth of computing both in industry and academia.
Now back to the original topic. What language(s) to use to teach beginning computing.
There are two basic methods. One is to teach the nitty gritty machine level first and then move up to higher and higher levels of abstraction. I.E. Bits, Nibbles, Bytes et al. The second is to start at a higher level of abstraction, teach the higher level concepts, such as iterative loops, without getting bogged down with the minutiae of what's under the hood. With the second method you can get more specific if you need to.
I would argue that most people will get bored with method 1 and have no real need for it. Method two does require selecting the level of abstraction you want to start at, you tailor the selection to the group you are trying to teach. People who argue C are simply picking a lower level of abstraction than people who argue for Java, either can be "right" or "wrong" depending on the people in the class and the objectives of the class.
I also think that a good grounding in computational theory and the study of algorithms is a good idea. If you know why a bubble sort on a 1 million entry list is a bad idea then it doesn't really matter what language you decide to not implement it in
It is. The punishment is still extreme to the point of being silly. And I'm still not sure I buy the reasoning behind the ban.
Hell, as others have pointed out, this came out after the letter from the state food folks clarifying that candy is not covered by the ban, so this could possibly just be the school rotating in a new excuse when the old one is discredited.
I don't know the school or its policies, and of course trying to search for any "gum and hard candy ban" that might have been in place before the story broke is now pretty much impossible.
If such a ban existed, then the school's story has a lot more credibility - they were (possibly overzealously) in enforcing a (possibly misguided) ban that existed as a reaction to a real problem.
It's also possible that the ban exists, and was enforced as written, and the only real sin is that some administrator didn't take the time to understand what was going on before he/she made something up to get a reporter to stop hounding him/her.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.