[opensource] Printing files from the command line

Silas Baronda silas.baronda at gmail.com
Sat Feb 7 21:21:54 EST 2009

Resolve/C++ is fine for what they need it to do. If you come into the  
class not knowing any other language then this is all good.  My  
problem was that I came in and I knew about c, python, php, etc and  
was not trying to think like deeply about the subject taught.  I  
considered it basic classes about another language and wanting to get  
through as quickly as possible so I can take better/cooler classes.  I  
actually never thought they would go this deep in the early CSE classes.

Now if someone came into this program not knowing any prior language  
then I think they would concentrate more on the things taught as a  
subject instead of the language.  They wouldn't think of the language  
as the constraint but the actual problem they are trying to solve.

I vote for objective-c as the language for the sequence. Just j/king
On Feb 7, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Timothy Normand Miller wrote:

> As I understand it (knowing Bruce Weide and some of his RAs),  
> Resolve C++ is basically C++ with Resolve concepts layered on top of  
> it.  There is, in fact, a "pure" Resolve language that they use in  
> their software verification research.  This language has quite a  
> different syntax and is more abstract and "academic" in nature,  
> although they have an interpreter for it.  The pure Resolve language  
> also provides a means to add logical specifications that describe  
> the meaning of what your algorithm is supposed to implement.   
> They're actively researching using automatic theorem provers to  
> determine whether or not your algorithm is consistent with the  
> logical constraints (or vice versa).  While I'm not a fan of  
> massively type-strict languages and such (Pascal, Ada, VHDL, etc.),  
> I can definitely see the value in having a system for PROVING that  
> your code is correct according to its specification.
> They use Resolve (C++ or not) to teach high-level language concepts  
> that can be implemented in any language, but their goal is to  
> abstract away a lot of the mechanics of programming and focus on  
> those concepts.  Stacks, queues, algorithms, logical constraints, etc.
> Personally, I think that if one were to select a mainstream language  
> to use to teach these things, something purely OO like Ruby (or  
> perhaps Python) would be better than Java, if only for the lack of  
> legacy cruft and simpler syntax that don't distract from the concept  
> being explored.
> Of course, if you want an interesting challenge, you should try  
> doing all of this stuff in Verilog or VHDL.   :)
> On Feb 7, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Paul Betts wrote:
>> Why am I only on my phone when good mails like this show up?
>> Anyway, short summary is, Resolve is great ideas hampered by a crap  
>> language (C++) that really clouds the solid underlying concepts.
>> -- 
>> Paul Betts
>> On Feb 7, 2009, at 14:46, Shaun Rowland <rowland at cse.ohio- 
>> state.edu> wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Aaron Joseph wrote:
>>>> Also, I never asked anyone to send me the key, I just wondered if  
>>>> someone has successfully gotten it from soc lab or oit or some  
>>>> other legal source. And it seems like the answer is that no-one  
>>>> like soc lab or oit has it for free.
>>> That is a little much to infer from what was stated. I am not going
>>> to dwell on this. I gave my nudge about the subject.
>>>> Shaun, no-one is going to think you're "the man" for trying to do  
>>>> what's right. However you could have helped me out a little when  
>>>> I was trying to argue why RESOLVE sucks at that UG forum!
>>> :-)
>>> Heh. I really don't want to start a big discussion about Resolve.
>>> But I can't resist giving my current impression - at least a little.
>>> It is impossible to broach the subject without writing a book.
>>> I have seen this argument come up so many times over the years.
>>> I knew C++ pretty well when I came into Resolve. I also used to
>>> wonder if it might be better to use another language which would
>>> have given me more practical experience. I can't remember how many
>>> of the things we learned there I had picked up reading on my own
>>> (that's pretty much how I learn for the most part), but I've
>>> always wondered if knowing a certain amount enabled me to fly
>>> through those courses while not having all the material sink
>>> in as much as it could have. I am not really worried about that
>>> now. I have a lot more experience than back then. Learning to use
>>> a new programming language is not a big deal IMO. That's more
>>> of a practical concern which I prefer to do on my own anyway.
>>> The "practical" side of the argument is greatly outweighed by
>>> the "learning the concepts" side - especially now that I am
>>> older.
>>> One of my problems when I was taking undergrad courses was
>>> that I was more interested in doing things on my own instead
>>> of doing homework... but that's another story. I am sure I'd
>>> still have that problem, but I hope I am more disciplined now,
>>> however it just might be hopeless :-)
>>> Anyway, Bruce is co-director of the CSE department's Reusable
>>> Software Research Group. He's a really smart guy. I'm sure that's
>>> an understatement. Even if I wanted to argue about Resolve, I'd
>>> put a _lot_ of thought into it first, probably come to the
>>> conclusion that I'm possibly missing something that someone
>>> who is an expert in the field knows, and then spend a lot
>>> more time investigating it. Maybe if I wanted to argue about
>>> it I'd end up learning even more reasons why the course sequence
>>> is a good idea as is. Actually, I already feel that's the
>>> case. The arguments for it being the way it is seem sound to
>>> me. Bruce cares a lot about teaching. I am sure he's thought
>>> about this much more than anyone else here, and he knows what
>>> he's doing. I'm not saying that because he's a faculty member
>>> of the department in which I work either.
>>> If one is worried about this being a main item on their resume
>>> and people wondering what it is, I don't see that as an argument.
>>> It is good to not discuss the fact it was Resolve, but what you
>>> have learned in the sequence. Besides, you'll probably have
>>> time to learn "resume enhancing" languages before you're resume
>>> would depend on such factors anyway. Once you know the art of
>>> programming, picking up a "practical" language is not a big
>>> deal I think. I've seen the Resolve argument come up over
>>> the years, and the "practical language" argument means nothing
>>> to me at this point.
>>> So, my short answer is that I think the Resolve sequence is
>>> fine - so if I spoke up, I'd end up being on the wrong side
>>> of your battle :-)
>>> I'll give you one seemingly supportive argument about how
>>> I was annoyed in a group project once when two of us
>>> wanted to use C++ and the other two said they knew real
>>> C++ and not just Resolve... and they didn't, so it was
>>> annoying. There are reasons why this experience was silly
>>> however: a) Why would I ever have wanted to use C++?
>>> b) Either language would not have made a big difference.
>>> c) These group projects annoy me because I am a pain
>>> to program with, caring about using white space correctly,
>>> caring about things like using private data instead of
>>> just making everything public (some people miss the point),
>>> and planning out design first... using revision control.
>>> d) It really had absolutely nothing to do with Resolve
>>> itself. See, on the surface it seems supportive, but it
>>> isn't :-)
>>> I know this is all extremely way off topic. I'm bored right
>>> now.
>>> -- 
>>> Shaun Rowland
>>> rowland at cse.ohio-state.edu
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Opensource mailing list
>>> Opensource at cse.ohio-state.edu
>>> http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensource mailing list
>> Opensource at cse.ohio-state.edu
>> http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource
> Timothy Normand Miller
> millerti at cse.ohio-state.edu
> http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti
> _______________________________________________
> Opensource mailing list
> Opensource at cse.ohio-state.edu
> http://mail.cse.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource

More information about the Opensource mailing list