uptake of windows in computer science departments | The Coffeehouse

Cairo
I want my waffle sundae, give me my carbs!

nlondon wrote:

serishema wrote:...i'm reluctantly installing linux on the virtual pc trial which it seems i'll most likely have to buy along with more ram to keep it happy...

I believe you can legally download, install and use Virtual Server 2005 R2 for free:

He could also use the free "VMWare Player" and a free pre-built Linux image.

TimP

Manip wrote:
I'm on a CS degree but my Uni' has set the curriculum so that it suits realistic jobs, for a lot of it at least. Which means a higher emphasis on Windows/VC++/MFC/.Net/Java etc. There are a couple of units that cover UNIX in various forms but nothing deep and nothing (except the Java) *developee.

*(not a word)

Wait, what? Are you saying that development jobs dealing with UNIX/Linux aren't "realistic" jobs? I would be willing to bet that nearly all Fortune 500 companies (except maybe Microsoft) use UNIX/Linux in some form or another. One thing I've found out when talking to large companies is they don't have any platform bias. They pick the best platform for the task and despite what some people here think, Windows is not the best platform for all aspects of business.

serishema
The Last Hacker Chick

Detroit Muscle wrote:
You know, cl.exe and gcc aren't your only options for a compiler. Your MCU/MPU vendor probably offers a compiler too.

And you people are still hand coding software? What is this, 1995? Unless you are writting device drivers, nobody should hand code software.

Hand coding software? How else can you create software. I know of no visual basic esque tools that could create say a Direct X 3D game engine without a line of code.

DoomBringer
Doom!

Most of the crazy Linux profs at my school couldn't install a printer by themselves... or install Linux. Or probably even run it.

cain

At my university there is one lecturer whose students would probably die of shock if he managed to get through an entire class without making a crack at Microsoft, he's a big *nix zealot. There's another one who is apparently just as bad but I've never had a class with him before so I can't say for certain. There are a couple more who probably average about one bad MS joke per month. Most of the rest of the CS staff are anti-Microsoft, but not as vocal about it.

The most annoying thing though, at least with the first guy I mentioned, is that it seems like he hasn't used Windows since 95 or even 3.1. Most of the things he complains about have been fixed for a long time. At least when I complain about linux, it's based on quite a lot of use over the last few years Smiley

.

TimP

On a similar note to what Manip said, it's almost astounding how technologically illiterate some computer science professors are. It's understandable at the high school level where "computer science" teachers are generally just math teachers with enough CS knowledge to teach the class, but at the college level it's kind of surprising.

TimP

Forum error caused a double post.

SCMcDonnell
.NET

Competition?

If Linux were to ever get as popular as Windows, the world would see how truly insecure Linux is.

SM

Xaero_Vincent
Sexy me

SCMcDonnell wrote:
Competition?

If Linux were to ever get as popular as Windows, the world would see how truly insecure Linux is.

SM

I think that is unnecessary flame bait. Linux is insecure by default, yes, but you can patch the kernel with SELinux, Grsecurity, etc. add 'sudo' program, iptables, firestarter, etc. firewalls, BitDefender anti-virus, set more services to run as user rather than root or admin. Then you could make sure you have all unused ports closed, especially port 25 and 80. Finally you can increase the browser zone security and clean out your cookies, internet files, stored passwords, cache and history. for further security measures. Oh and lastly, never run as root unless for recovery (safe-mode) reasons or disconnected from any networks.

So I'm trying to say that Linux can be made secure, every bit as secure as Windows Vista and FreeBSD but takes some knowelege and effort to do so. However the fact that most distributions dont come with secure defaults is shameful IMHO.

Regards,
Vincent

Manip

There was a lecturer at my Uni' who was talking about how "secure" Firefox is, and how every 'smart' person should be running it... Without any kind of justification ...

I stuck my hand up and asked "In what way is it more secure?" and watched him stumble over his own words for the next five minutes while he tried to make up at load of bull, that basically comes down to "It just is."

Zealots are zealots whoever they are ... Academics should tread carefully though as it is dangerous to make statements of suggestive fact that you are unable to prove... Fortunately by the time people go to University they should have made up their own minds (or at least be able to look at the evidence).

My lecturers get a default amount of respect and can gain or loose that by what they say or do.

Which kind of leads on to my next point.... There are, from what I have seen, two types of lecturers... Those that are there to teach and those that are there to research. The researchers seem to be far more opinionated, and far less able to justify or backup their opinions... Worryingly their opinions even come out though the course material.

You might expect the teaching lecturers to be more opinionated and less current, I did. But I was wrong. I think it stems from some sort of "academic moral code" the teaching lecturers share, in which they try and be accurate over just about anything else.

Manip

If you can only say one thing about Linux that would be that it certainly is very malleable. It can be the most insecure thing ever executed on a CPU or a virtual Fort Nox. I'm a big fan of SELinux and honestly can't understand why it isn't the default in every Linux Kernel... Multi-Level Security FTW. Smiley

Sampy
This will be the sixth time we have destroyed it and we have become exceedingly efficient at it

AndyC wrote:
VC++ is a C++ compiler not a C one, so that is hardly surprising. It is a more compliant C++ compiler than gcc .

He means g++ but it's still worth noting.

Xaero_Vincent
Sexy me

Hey ChrisA,

Did you know that if you force a cotton swab far enough into one ear that it could eventually perk out the other?

Regards,
Vincent

cain

ChrisA wrote:
First its right to point out that Linux is immune to viruses.

I started laughing there and it just got worse through the rest of the post.

ChrisA wrote:
Secondly, College professors dont like the Visual C++ compilers because they do not conform to any standard but the Microsoft way. GCC, borland and Intel Compilers are developed by the true ISO standard.

Do you realise that VC2003 was one of the most standards compliant C++ compilers available? More standards compliant than gcc or ICC. I'm not sure about VC05, haven't seen anything about it yet, but I expect it's at least as standards compliant as VC03.

ChrisA wrote:
Im glad Visual C++ is not used or taught in Computer Science programs. We need standards, until VC starts using true standards expect the adoption of Windows in a professional programming environment to continue to be small.

So because VC++ isn't used in Computer Science departments at 'Universities' the adoption of Windows in a 'professional programming environment' will continue to be small? 1: that makes no sense, 2: the adoption of Windows in any environment outside universities is huge...

The laughter almost killed me at that point.

AndyC

Sampy wrote:

AndyC wrote: VC++ is a C++ compiler not a C one, so that is hardly surprising. It is a more compliant C++ compiler than gcc .

He means g++ but it's still worth noting.

Actually there was a hint of irony in there which was obviously too subtle. But yes, it's also more compliant than g++

Smiley

WillemM

I study computer science and the only computers we can work on, are the ones with linux on them, I have to use my own notebook with windows XP to be able to use word.

While I can work perfectly with linux, I still like windows because of its good features in terms of available software and the quality of the software that is available for windows.

It's funny you mention GCC and its compliance with ANSI C++ and all that kind of stuff, I had the same discussion with one of the professors. I answered: "I use visual C++, because installing GCC on windows sucks". Not a very scientific answer, but it's true.

Other than that, I really don't care as long as the code gets compiled properly. I don't use C++ that much anymore, since I am specializing in middleware applications, which almost all use their own process definition languages, Java or C#/VB.Net.

serishema
The Last Hacker Chick

cain wrote:

ChrisA wrote: Secondly, College professors dont like the Visual C++ compilers because they do not conform to any standard but the Microsoft way. GCC, borland and Intel Compilers are developed by the true ISO standard.

Do you realise that VC2003 was one of the most standards compliant C++ compilers available? More standards compliant than gcc or ICC. I'm not sure about VC05, haven't seen anything about it yet, but I expect it's at least as standards compliant as VC03.

In my freebsd days i also used to claim VC was non standards conforming, most likely because i was inflienced by an environment in which it was cool to hate microsoft for no real reason and having had little experience with their products at that time i guess i was a bit of a sheep. In using it i've never actually seen an instance of failed compilation due to non conformance with standards. Any problems have always turned out to be a programming error on my part. I don't go for blaming the compiler as an explanation though i have in my dos days of turbo pascal complained about the assembly code not being well optimized, blaming the compiler seems reminicent of those forum posts from arogant newbies where the title of the post is "MSVC++ bug!?" and what follows is a posting of code with missing ;s at the end of lines and other basic syntax errors and I would not advise doing so unless one is eaither 1) a compiler developer 2) fond of looking like a fool.

I guess as one becomes more experienced one learns how much they don't know and accepts that they're always going to not know more than they do know.

caffeine

Who here does computer science? Who else here has noticed that computer science departments seem to run linux and that staff members hastle students with laptops who aren't running linux? One of my professors once claimed that gcc has better conformance to the ISO/ANSI C/C++ standards than Visual C++ which is not even true! gcc as far as i know doesn't support true multidimensional arrays.

eg int tictactoe[3,3];

Will not compile on gcc. (Okay i haven't actually checked and i haven't written unmanaged C++ code in 100 million years it could be a CLR thing don't flame me if i 'm wrong)

Hrmmm.

Apparently you don't do computer science.   You should've paid more attention in your freshman comp sci classes.

That is not valid C code. By any international standard.   None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

It's not even valid C++ code. By any international standard. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

I'm not even a comp sci geek. Never took a computer science class in my entire life. Not a single solitary one. I'm completely self taught. How is it that I know ISO/ANSI standards better than you?

I have news for you, sweetie pie. Your professor was absolutely positively right. gcc does have better conformance to the ISO/ANSI C/C++ standards.   Not by a little. By a WHOLE LOT.   The gcc compiler is a stickler for conformance to international standards because it's written by an international community that strives to make portability the #1 priority for gcc.

gcc is not a fast compiler. Its executables generally won't win many speed tests. If you want a speedy executable that only works on Windows, you use VC++ or cl.exe. If you want a speedy executable that only works on the Intel CPU, you use Intel's compiler. If you want a compiler that will run anywhere, and is a stickler for conformant C/C++, you use gcc.

And that, my darling, is why schools push Linux/Unix onto comp sci people. To teach them how to code and think according to agreed upon international standards. Instead of whining about how unfair the push for Linux was, you ought to have installed Linux, paid more attention in your freshman classes and tried to learn something from your professors. How incredibly conceited you must be to think you know better than a person who has devoted his/her life to comp sci for more years than you've been alive. Talk about hubris! Where did you get such an overstated opinion of your abilities?

Judging by this blog, you do not know C.   I'm sure you can write a "hello world" program, but not knowing how to handle something as basic as a 2D array is pretty much a red flag that you don't really know the C programming language. Not by a long shot.

Did you know that this indexed by Google? Prospective professors, employers and clients will see your blog and wonder how much you paid attention in your freshman C class. Aren't you embarrassed by that?

Last hacker chick? LOL!   I've dated chicks who build robots and program them in assembly language. I know chicks who are better programmers than me by orders of magnitude. I dated a chick who programmed an embedded systems compiler. If you really were the last hacker chick, it would be a really sad statement about the female gender.

so i'm reluctantly installing linux on the virtual pc trial which it seems i'll most likely have to buy along with more ram to keep it happy

Don't even get me started on a tirade about memory management under Windows versus memory management on Linux. Apparently you know as much about operating systems as you do the C programming language.

What exactly did you learn in your comp sci classes?

caffeine

He means g++ but it's still worth noting.

Uhhh... Bzzzzt! No he didn't.

Do "man g++" on the nearest Linux machine. What man page comes up?

caffeine

Cain, you in particular are a bonehead.

1. How many Linux boxes run anti-virus programs? To a Linux machine, an anti-virus program is one that prevents Windows viruses from cluttering up our inbox. I have never, ever run an anti-virus program in the 10 years of running Linux. I personally do not know a single person who runs an anti-virus program.

Do you run one? I don't even know you, and I'll go out on a limb and say you almost certainly do.

What does that tell you about viruses on Linux versus viruses on Windows?

What makes you, in particular, so dumb is that you ridiculed the one intelligent thing that was mentioned here. That proof of concept viruses have been developed for the ELF executable format but that no known virus infections have been reported "in the wild".

2. So vc++ is the most standards compliant compiler in the world, eh? OK, moron. Throw this at your compiler:

int main( void )
{
    printf("hello world");

    int i = 2;

    return 0;
}

Name the file "foo.c" to make sure VC++ compiles it as a C program and not a C++ program.

This is a valid ISO/C99 program. Compiles just fine on gcc.

Your compiler will barf.   Your compiler can't even handle a hello world program.

Standards compliant. LOL!

Xaero_Vincent
Sexy me

caffeine,

I hope you realize that the last post on this thread was six months ago.

I have no comment other than to say someones programming ability can be vastly different after six months of training/practice.

Regards,
Vincent

AndyC

caffeine wrote:

Name the file "foo.c" to make sure VC++ compiles it as a C program and not a C++ program.

This is a valid ISO/C99 program. Compiles just fine on gcc.

Your compiler will barf. Your compiler can't even handle a hello world program.

Standards compliant. LOL!

And, as already pointed out in this thread months ago, VC++ is NOT a C compiler. Making your argument rather redundant.

If you must resurrect old threads, it's best to at least read them first.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

AndyC wrote:
VC++ is NOT a C compiler.

I'm afraid I have to object to that.

If I run cl.exe from the command prompt, this is the first line of output:
"Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 14.00.50727.762 for 80x86"

C/C++ compiler, see. Smiley

The fact that it can compile in C mode (default for .c files or use /Tc or /TC) and that it will reject C++ constructs in that mode is further proof.

It is however true that VC++ is primarily a C++ compiler. Afaik there have been no language support improvements to the C front-end in a long time. It definitely doesn't support any C99 features.

And if standards compliance is your main argument for choosing a compiler you should use Comeau. It is the only compiler in the world that implements 100% of the ISO C99 and C++03 standards. For example, it is the only compiler in the world that supports export templates (and this will likely remain the case; the EDG group (which implemented Comeau's C++ front-end) took an insanely long time to implement this feature (longer then it took them to implement all of Java), and discovered that its specification in the standard introduces language ambiguities, drastically complicates argument dependent lookup, and has almost none of the advantages the feature was meant for. It is likely export templates will be removed from a future version of the C++ standard).

EDIT: To my best knowledge, VC++ misses only two features from the ISO C++ standard: the aforementioned export templates and exception specifications (the latter it can parse but it won't use them). In both cases it was a deliberate decision on the part of the VC++ team not to implement those features: export templates for the aforementioned reason, and exception specifications because the way they are done in C++ is fundamentally flawed and the VC++ compiler folks felt their efforts were better spent elsewhere.

G++ does support exception specifications which (if it doesn't miss any other features, which I don't think it does but I might be wrong) so if you say it is more standards compliant this is true. However since the difference lies in at most that one feature I don't think this is a valid argument anymore for choosing one compiler over the other. That was true in the VC6 days, but not anymore (though it is worth nothing that VC6 is older than the C++ standard, so that it is not so compliant is perhaps to be expected). If you primarily do C development I agree that VC would perhaps not be the best choice.

In reply to {0}

Download:[Pending]

In reply to {0}

Download:[Pending]