Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

How long does it take to be good at programming?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 jedibebop

jedibebop

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 1,935 posts

Posted 22 July 2007 - 11:16 PM

Teach Yourself Programming in 10 years


Norvig speaks the truth. His book (PAIP) is a must read, even if you don't like Lisp, or AI. It's almost as good as SICP (...almost :))

#22 jedibebop

jedibebop

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 1,935 posts

Posted 22 July 2007 - 11:16 PM

^^^The link above is an awesome read^^^

One thing to keep in mind is that being "good" doesn't just involve the language itself. For example, I think you'd find that someone with a strong grasp of the concept of object oriented programming (lets say, somebody that's been working in C++ for years) will have an easier time picking up Java than somebody new to programming in general. Pick a language, read up on the basics, code as much as you can, and you'll be good in no time.

I should take my own advice, my mad 1337 coding skills have atrophied. :(


C++ isn't really object oriented

#23 Abhayaa

Abhayaa

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 296 posts
  • Location:Too many handles, too many places.

Posted 22 July 2007 - 11:18 PM

^^^The link above is an awesome read^^^

One thing to keep in mind is that being "good" doesn't just involve the language itself. For example, I think you'd find that someone with a strong grasp of the concept of object oriented programming (lets say, somebody that's been working in C++ for years) will have an easier time picking up Java than somebody new to programming in general. Pick a language, read up on the basics, code as much as you can, and you'll be good in no time.

I should take my own advice, my mad 1337 coding skills have atrophied. :(


C++ isn't really object oriented


Maybe I sound warped, but I think Objective C is far more OOP than C++... Does this make sense, or is it just my weird brain?

/ab

#24 jedibebop

jedibebop

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 1,935 posts

Posted 22 July 2007 - 11:26 PM

^^^The link above is an awesome read^^^

One thing to keep in mind is that being "good" doesn't just involve the language itself. For example, I think you'd find that someone with a strong grasp of the concept of object oriented programming (lets say, somebody that's been working in C++ for years) will have an easier time picking up Java than somebody new to programming in general. Pick a language, read up on the basics, code as much as you can, and you'll be good in no time.

I should take my own advice, my mad 1337 coding skills have atrophied. :(


C++ isn't really object oriented


Maybe I sound warped, but I think Objective C is far more OOP than C++... Does this make sense, or is it just my weird brain?

/ab


I would agree, however the definition of OO itself is pretty murky, it's a grouping of useful concepts into a not so useful package.

"[OO] conflates in one mechanism of "objects" or "classes" a calvacade of features that ought to be mutually orthogonal: dynamic dispatch, encapsulation, interface compatibility, namespace management, records, ...."

#25 Abhayaa

Abhayaa

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 296 posts
  • Location:Too many handles, too many places.

Posted 22 July 2007 - 11:55 PM

I would agree, however the definition of OO itself is pretty murky, it's a grouping of useful concepts into a not so useful package.

"[OO] conflates in one mechanism of "objects" or "classes" a calvacade of features that ought to be mutually orthogonal: dynamic dispatch, encapsulation, interface compatibility, namespace management, records, ...."


The first OOPL I really got to *like* was SmallTalk. I learned it long after I fiddled with other OOPLs and so-called OOPLs... I was given a copy of "A Quick Trip to ObjectLand" to read, which got me into it in more than a grumbling sense... the book is still available, which is telling in and of itself. I haven't played much with SmallTalk in almost a decade, though I've toyed with Squeak some (works better now than it did back 5 years ago... java isn't my idea of a great IDE base :( )

#26 Tonto

Tonto

    Mack Daddy 31337

  • Banned
  • 206 posts

Posted 28 July 2007 - 08:02 AM

^^^The link above is an awesome read^^^

One thing to keep in mind is that being "good" doesn't just involve the language itself. For example, I think you'd find that someone with a strong grasp of the concept of object oriented programming (lets say, somebody that's been working in C++ for years) will have an easier time picking up Java than somebody new to programming in general. Pick a language, read up on the basics, code as much as you can, and you'll be good in no time.

I should take my own advice, my mad 1337 coding skills have atrophied. :(


C++ isn't really object oriented


He didn't say it was. If you find someone that has worked with C++ for years, they will undoubtedly know their way around the OO facilities of the language.

>> I would agree, however the definition of OO itself is pretty murky, it's a grouping of useful concepts into a not so useful package.
Justify that, your quotation of whatever doesn't.

#27 jedibebop

jedibebop

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 1,935 posts

Posted 28 July 2007 - 12:36 PM

^^^The link above is an awesome read^^^

One thing to keep in mind is that being "good" doesn't just involve the language itself. For example, I think you'd find that someone with a strong grasp of the concept of object oriented programming (lets say, somebody that's been working in C++ for years) will have an easier time picking up Java than somebody new to programming in general. Pick a language, read up on the basics, code as much as you can, and you'll be good in no time.

I should take my own advice, my mad 1337 coding skills have atrophied. :(


C++ isn't really object oriented


He didn't say it was. If you find someone that has worked with C++ for years, they will undoubtedly know their way around the OO facilities of the language.

>> I would agree, however the definition of OO itself is pretty murky, it's a grouping of useful concepts into a not so useful package.
Justify that, your quotation of whatever doesn't.


Sure it does

#28 The_STDstroyer

The_STDstroyer

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 422 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 29 July 2007 - 12:23 AM

I thought they were credit cards =\

Cause they are.

wait that really is you? i thought it was like a stock photo or something. handsome fellow.

#29 Tonto

Tonto

    Mack Daddy 31337

  • Banned
  • 206 posts

Posted 29 July 2007 - 05:33 AM

Okay, if we really need to get down to semantics

"Main Entry: or·thog·o·nal
Pronunciation: or-'thä-g&-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin orthogonius, from Greek orthogOnios, from orth- + gOnia angle -- more at -GON
1 a : intersecting or lying at right angles b : having perpendicular slopes or tangents at the point of intersection <orthogonal curves>
2 : having a sum of products or an integral that is zero or sometimes one under specified conditions: as a of real-valued functions : having the integral of the product of each pair of functions over a specific interval equal to zero b of vectors : having the scalar product equal to zero c of a square matrix : having the sum of products of corresponding elements in any two rows or any two columns equal to one if the rows or columns are the same and equal to zero otherwise : having a transpose with which the product equals the identity matrix
3 of a linear transformation : having a matrix that is orthogonal : preserving length and distance
4 : composed of mutually orthogonal elements <an orthogonal basis of a vector space>
5 : statistically independent"

If author meant 'mutually exclusive', that's an unwarranted unsupported remark still, and I'd like to see in what context it was said. But really, what is it about OO that doesn't sit with you? And what do you know about design and implementation? I don't like probing around but from your 'esoteriq' website, but your largest project is less than 200 loc, an irc bot, using an irc programming library.

#30 StingWasp

StingWasp

    the 0ne

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 29 July 2007 - 06:55 PM

So.... how long or how much effort does it take?


It all depends on what you want to do, of course.

You can learn programming in about ten days. You can learn to use your programming knowledge in about two years. There is a difference.

A programming language is a limited set of rules about how to structure what you want the computer to do. You can learn those rules in about ten days.

But to apply those rules to computing problems can take as long as you live, of course.

If you're really new at programming, I would recommend an easy language that will learn you the basics about it first, and that will learn you the basics common to all types of programming.

Lots of people here, and elsewhere, will recommend C or C++. I wouldn't start with those languages. If you want a recommendation, I'd point you to Object Pascal, actually.

Object Pascal looks a lot like basic, and it is very scalable. It's learning curve is shallow, so you'll learn the rules quickly. If you choose the Delphi flavour of Object Pascal you'll be writing apps within days. If you choose the open source Free Pascal it will take a little longer because it is a bit harder to get into and a bit harder to set up.

Chances are you'll probably stick with Object Pascal once you start with it. As I said, it is a very scaleable language. It's nearly as nimble as C++, when you get under the hood of it. Except it looks prettier, and is easier to read after six months. :)

#31 bcrscahh198987

bcrscahh198987

    Mack Daddy 31337

  • Members
  • 211 posts
  • Location:Ur rektumm

Posted 29 July 2007 - 09:55 PM

I just bought a C++ book, I'm starting to learn all this stuff right now. I've learned about How Java and C# came from C++.

The book is quite huge, and the author said that all the stuff in the book is just for beginners :(

C++ a beginner's guide by Herbert Schildt. published by McGraw Hill

#32 PurpleJesus

PurpleJesus

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 1,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:800

Posted 30 July 2007 - 08:19 AM

I just bought a C++ book, I'm starting to learn all this stuff right now. I've learned about How Java and C# came from C++.

The book is quite huge, and the author said that all the stuff in the book is just for beginners :(

C++ a beginner's guide by Herbert Schildt. published by McGraw Hill



I know this idea sucks... but instead of pasting in the examples off of the CD ROM... try typing them in by hand... I think I learn more by hunting down and fixing the typos... Maybe you would too...

#33 Inode

Inode

    elite

  • Members
  • 103 posts
  • Location:

Posted 30 July 2007 - 06:08 PM

How long is a piece of string?

#34 tiocsti

tiocsti

    rekcah-rebÜ

  • Banned
  • 676 posts

Posted 30 July 2007 - 06:29 PM

deleted.

Edited by tiocsti, 08 December 2007 - 12:27 AM.





BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!