On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 10:36:51 -0800, Paul Lutus wrote:

>  Chilkat Software wrote:
>  
>  
> > About 20 years ago, when I graduated from University of Illinois' with
> > a BS in Computer Science / Engineering, the department's philosophy was
> > for students to acquire an understanding of computers and programming
> > from the ground up.  That meant from the electronic circuit level, to
> > the logic level (NAND and NOR gates), to assembly programming, and on
> > up.  My answer to the original question is based on this philosophy. I
> > recommend starting at the C/C++ level simply to gain a fundamental
> > understanding of the bits & bytes,
> > pointers, pointer arithmetic, structure layouts, byte ordering,
> > structure member alignment, dynamic memory allocation on the heap as
> > opposed to the stack, etc.   Understanding this gives you a good idea
> > as to what's going on "under the hood" with higher-level languages. 
> > Things won't be so mysterious. It'll pay off in the long run.
>  
>  The OP is not trying to become a programmer qua programmer. He wants to
>  be able to write some very specific kinds of software in a particular a
>  field. In such a case I recommend that the student learn a language that
>  conveys the essence of programming, without necessarily conveying the
>  essence of the underlying hardware.
>  
>  For such a person, understanding a bit-flip is far below the priority of
>  understanding encapsulation and top-down design.
> 
> 
paul i think u'r correct in the sense that u can be a great driver w/ out
understanding all the ins and outs of the engine, etc. in italy, they
still have driving students learn all about the engine, how it works,
etc.; as opposed to teaching them how to drive right away and leave the
mechanical part for the mechanically inclined. sure it's great to know
more; and i do want to know more but i also have to be productive and
efficient--which will then afford me the time to learn more, etc.  if i
get bogged down in the mechanical details before ever having a chance to
be productive, that we be a problem. i say this w/ out really kowing what
i am getting into or the complete relevance of it but u get my
meaning.....