[opensource] RESOLVE

Shaun Rowland rowland at cse.ohio-state.edu
Mon Feb 9 02:54:08 EST 2009

On Feb 8, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Aaron Joseph wrote:

> I'm replying to shauns message in this thread so that we dont have 3  
> threads floating around.

I am pretty sure we've changed the subject header, so... :-)

> RESOLVE/C++ is definitely not C++. Not even close. It just happens  
> to be built in C++. RESOLVE is about using those cryptic math  
> definitions that brian mentioned, which is somehow supposed to help  
> people understand what's going on. It's just a stupid concept to try  
> to make something more understandable by adding these math  
> definitions as comments. And they really push this idea as if it's  
> useful. That's why I want to see some java pop in there.

So what you really want is to get rid of the mathematical part,
not just change the language. I say this because if they made
a "simple language change", that stuff would still be there.
So it would be about as much Java as Resolve is C++ - because
it would be built in Java, not Java.

Otherwise I see this as just a change between learning a little
C++ to a little Java.

> As for taking 421 or 459... ECE majors don't take language courses.  
> We take 221,222,321,560,660 and that's it. So resolve is a waste of  
> time to me. If they used pure C++ then I'd be totally fine with that  
> too... but the bastardized version they use doesn't cut it.

The differences seem fairly small for the pieces of C++ that
you do learn. I am seeing what I stated above, not simply
changing the language.

As far as the course sequence goes, that's a point that might
have a little more weight. To me that has to be decided by
ECE and what they think their majors get out of this sequence.
These courses are designed with CSE's goals in mind, I'm
sure. When advocating a major change, I assume CSE's goals
come first. I'd put them first.

> I'm happy that at least Brian gets what I'm talking about. The class  
> would be so much better if the same stuff were done in java and if  
> they got rid of the whole math respresentation thing.

To convince anyone you're going to have to have some concrete
demonstration of how the same concepts will be taught better
without these things, not just going on the practical aspect
of the language used - and not just saying it would. Since the
focus of the course sequence is geared in the concepts direction,
that is much more difficult than anything you've put forward up
to this point.

I'm pretty much done debating this. I suggest you talk to Bruce
and he can definitely explain his view much better than I.
Shaun Rowland
rowland at cse.ohio-state.edu

More information about the Opensource mailing list