Reiser - Wirth book
Good Day to you all.. I've been groaning through the formalism of Reiser's and Wirth's book "Programming in Oberon - Steps Beyond Pascal and Modula". :) Does anyone know if there's a published list of answers to the exercises at the end of the above book's chapters? -- Duke
Hi Duke, I vaguely remember that there was something ... but apparently ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/ is down. Thanks to Jan Verhoeven who has provided a copy: http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/Oberon/data/ProgrammingInOberon.tar.gz -- Bernhard
-----Original Message----- From: dukeofperl@ml1.net [mailto:dukeofperl@ml1.net] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 12:09 AM To: Oberon List Subject: [Oberon] Reiser - Wirth book
Good Day to you all..
I've been groaning through the formalism of Reiser's and Wirth's book "Programming in Oberon - Steps Beyond Pascal and Modula". :)
Does anyone know if there's a published list of answers to the exercises at the end of the above book's chapters? -- Duke
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Treutwein Bernhard wrote: Hello Bernhard,
I vaguely remember that there was something ... but apparently ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/ is down.
Yes! I saw it there, but like you say, the A2 ftp server is in a coma - again! ;)
Thanks to Jan Verhoeven who has provided a copy: http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/Oberon/data/ProgrammingInOberon.tar.gz
I have that, thanks. However, the conceptual questions in the exercises are not dealt with in Jan's bundle. I think though, I've changed my mind about _how_ I want to learn Oberon. "Programming in Oberon - Steps Beyond Pascal and Modula" is for CS students and mathematicians - not a hacker and and long-time string manipulator like me. I wish that I could find an Oberon tutorial that resembles the approach taken in the following Icon language tutorial: "Icon Programming for Humanists", at http://unicon.sourceforge.net/ubooks.html - bottom of page. If you (or anyone else on this list) are aware of such a document, would you please let me know? Thank... -- Duke
Hello Duke, You could take a look a the book of Eric Nikitin, Into the realm of Oberon. It is a nice introduction into the formalism of programming and still used in the first year class programming at the University of Antwerp. Greets, F.P I do not have
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Treutwein Bernhard wrote:
Hello Bernhard,
I vaguely remember that there was something ... but apparently ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/ is down.
Yes! I saw it there, but like you say, the A2 ftp server is in a coma - again! ;)
Thanks to Jan Verhoeven who has provided a copy: http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/Oberon/data/ProgrammingInOberon.tar.gz
I have that, thanks. However, the conceptual questions in the exercises are not dealt with in Jan's bundle. I think though, I've changed my mind about _how_ I want to learn Oberon. "Programming in Oberon - Steps Beyond Pascal and Modula" is for CS students and mathematicians - not a hacker and and long-time string manipulator like me. I wish that I could find an Oberon tutorial that resembles the approach taken in the following Icon language tutorial:
"Icon Programming for Humanists", at http://unicon.sourceforge.net/ubooks.html - bottom of page. If you (or anyone else on this list) are aware of such a document, would you please let me know? Thank... -- Duke -- Oberon@lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon
Frans-Pieter Vonck Jesse Owenshof 69 1034WT Amsterdam 020-5374854 06 40343011
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Frans-Pieter Vonck wrote: Hello Frans-Pieter:
I do not have
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Treutwein Bernhard wrote:
Hello Bernhard,
I vaguely remember that there was something ... but apparently ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/ is down.
Yes! I saw it there, but like you say, the A2 ftp server is in a coma - again! ;)
Thanks to Jan Verhoeven who has provided a copy: http://fruttenboel.verhoeven272.nl/Oberon/data/ProgrammingInOberon.tar.gz
I have that, thanks. However, the conceptual questions in the exercises are not dealt with in Jan's bundle. I think though, I've changed my mind about _how_ I want to learn Oberon. "Programming in Oberon - Steps Beyond Pascal and Modula" is for CS students and mathematicians - not a hacker and and long-time string manipulator like me. I wish that I could find an Oberon tutorial that resembles the approach taken in the following Icon language tutorial:
"Icon Programming for Humanists", at http://unicon.sourceforge.net/ubooks.html - bottom of page. If you (or anyone else on this list) are aware of such a document, would you please let me know? Thank... --
You could take a look a the book of Eric Nikitin, Into the realm of Oberon. It is a nice introduction into the formalism of programming and still used in the first year class programming at the University of Antwerp.
Yes I could do that, but.... I don't want to learn Oberon by being overwhelmed with Algebra, Calculus, EBNF, and all the other garbage that is too often introduced into the mystical realm of computer programming. IMO, there's no need for it _for most levels of application_. Does Nitikin present Oberon from "Quantum Physics" point of view, or merely in terms of the requirements of "Astrophysics"? :) Do you see what I mean? That's why I referenced "Icon Programming for Humanists", to shift away from the "stars", down to the lowly level of "strings" where most of us peasants live. :D Thanks for your input. -- Duke
Yes I could do that, but.... I don't want to learn Oberon by being overwhelmed with Algebra, Calculus, EBNF, and all the other garbage that is too often introduced into the mystical realm of computer programming. IMO, there's no need for it _for most levels of application_. Does Nitikin present Oberon from "Quantum Physics" point of view, or merely in terms of the requirements of "Astrophysics"? :) Do you see what I mean? That's why I referenced "Icon Programming for Humanists", to shift away from the "stars", down to the lowly level of "strings" where most of us peasants live. :D Thanks for your input. -- Duke
If you can overcome your prejudice you may be surprised to learn that the 'garbage' will help you with your strings far more than you might currently imagine. To put that in context, my studies were in languages and linguistics, so I am (or was) in the target group for that Icon book - a humanities student. My professional programming background started with COBOL and I had no formal introduction to the 'garbage' or any mathematics beyond the age of 15. When I started to learn Modula-2 in the late 1980s I found the 'garbage' very difficult because it was so unfamiliar. However, persistence paid off and I now have a postgrad qualification in garbage. The great benefit of it is that it provides you with not just the fundamentals of programming, but also the fundamentals of language - obviously of value if you plan on some serious text processing. There is a unity at the heart of these disciplines that you will never understand unless you make the effort to 'get to the next level', as they say. Wirth's book "Algorithms and data structures" deals with string manipulation, pattern-matching and other tasks which appear similar to the tasks in the Icon programming book as far as I can tell from quick online flick through it. You might find it useful. It was probably the book that helped me most when I was learning Modula-2. There is an Oberon version available online somewhere, I think. Regards, Bob
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Bob Walkden wrote:
Yes I could do that, but.... I don't want to learn Oberon by being overwhelmed with Algebra, Calculus, EBNF, and all the other garbage that is too often introduced into the mystical realm of computer programming. IMO, there's no need for it _for most levels of application_. Does Nitikin present Oberon from "Quantum Physics" point of view, or merely in terms of the requirements of "Astrophysics"? :) Do you see what I mean? That's why I referenced "Icon Programming for Humanists", to shift away from the "stars", down to the lowly level of "strings" where most of us peasants live. :D Thanks for your input. -- Duke
If you can overcome your prejudice you may be surprised to learn that the 'garbage' will help you with your strings far more than you might currently imagine. To put that in context, my studies were in languages and linguistics, so I am (or was) in the target group for that Icon book - a humanities student. My professional programming background started with COBOL and I had no formal introduction to the 'garbage' or any mathematics beyond the age of 15. When I started to learn Modula-2 in the late 1980s I found the 'garbage' very difficult because it was so unfamiliar. However, persistence paid off and I now have a postgrad qualification in garbage. The great benefit of it is that it provides you with not just the fundamentals of programming, but also the fundamentals of language - obviously of value if you plan on some serious text processing. There is a unity at the heart of these disciplines that you will never understand unless you make the effort to 'get to the next level', as they say.
Obviously you found that, _for you_, a mathematical-based presentation of whatever programming was exactly what was needed. I _know_ that _for me_, such an approach is counter-productive! I learned Perl and PHP _very well_, and never needed to resort to the approach taken my the ETH folks. Of course, my intention is not to pursue Software Engeneering functions, which would require a thorough understanding of the math behind programming. I won't go there!
Wirth's book "Algorithms and data structures" deals with string manipulation, pattern-matching and other tasks which appear similar to the tasks in the Icon programming book as far as I can tell from quick online flick through it. You might find it useful. It was probably the book that helped me most when I was learning Modula-2. There is an Oberon version available online somewhere, I think.
I'll sure give "Algorithms and data structures" a good read! It's curious that you should mention COBOL above, because I'm also fooling around with OpenCOBOL - just to get a feel for what the guys back in the '60s, '70s, '80s, and even today had/have to go through. :) Thanks for your input. -- Duke
[...]
I'll sure give "Algorithms and data structures" a good read! It's curious
that
you should mention COBOL above, because I'm also fooling around with OpenCOBOL - just to get a feel for what the guys back in the '60s, '70s, '80s, and even today had/have to go through. :) Thanks for your input.
Good luck with that. Experience has taught me that Dijkstra was right about COBOL. B
Hi Bob, [...]
Good luck with that. Experience has taught me that Dijkstra was right about COBOL.
just curious, what did Dijkstra say about COBOL, I know his nice sentence: The tools we use hav a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking. regards -- Bernhard
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Treutwein Bernhard wrote:
Hi Bob,
[...]
Good luck with that. Experience has taught me that Dijkstra was right about COBOL.
just curious, what did Dijkstra say about COBOL, I know his nice sentence:
The tools we use hav a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia: [quote] Lack of structurability In his letter to an editor in 1975 titled "How do we tell truths that might hurt?", which was critical of several programming languages contemporaneous with COBOL, computer scientist and Turing Award recipient Edsger Dijkstra remarked that "The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense."[6] In his dissenting response to Dijkstra's article and the above "offensive statement", computer scientist Howard E. Tompkins defended structured COBOL: "COBOL programs with convoluted control flow indeed tend to 'cripple the mind'", but this was because "there are too many such business application programs written by programmers that have never had the benefit of structured COBOL taught well...".[7] Additionally, the introduction of OO-COBOL has added support for object-oriented code as well as user-defined functions and user-defined data types to COBOL's repertoire. [/quote] -- Duke
This reminds me of Dijkstra's rather famous 1968 letter to /Communications of the ACM/ "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" in which he argues for structured control statements. But he does not mention COBOL in it. (COBOL still sucks, BTW) link: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_Har... I also found this other link to his collected writings. link: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ --erikc On 2010-10-04 11:45, Duke Normandin wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Treutwein Bernhard wrote:
Hi Bob,
[...]
Good luck with that. Experience has taught me that Dijkstra was right about COBOL.
just curious, what did Dijkstra say about COBOL, I know his nice sentence:
The tools we use hav a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
[quote] Lack of structurability
In his letter to an editor in 1975 titled "How do we tell truths that might hurt?", which was critical of several programming languages contemporaneous with COBOL, computer scientist and Turing Award recipient Edsger Dijkstra remarked that "The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense."[6]
In his dissenting response to Dijkstra's article and the above "offensive statement", computer scientist Howard E. Tompkins defended structured COBOL: "COBOL programs with convoluted control flow indeed tend to 'cripple the mind'", but this was because "there are too many such business application programs written by programmers that have never had the benefit of structured COBOL taught well...".[7]
Additionally, the introduction of OO-COBOL has added support for object-oriented code as well as user-defined functions and user-defined data types to COBOL's repertoire. [/quote]
Apparently Wirth was responsible for the title "Go To Statement Considered Harmful". I was very lucky when I was being taught to program. The first 2 days I was taught by a man who was in his 60s at the time (1981) and had been programming since the dawn of time with no idea about structured programming Iin fact he sneered at it). I could not get a grasp of what he was trying to teach us, and I really struggled with it. On the 3rd day (!) a younger teacher asked for volunteers to learn something called Jackson Structured Programming. Having nothing to lose, I volunteered. He was a brilliant teacher. He ignored COBOL altogether, first teaching us to design programs using Jackson's method expressed in a pseudo-code which was essentially Pascal, and only then learn how to express it as a COBOL program using only those features of the language that implemented the design. This was what drew me to the Pascal family of languages - I did not understand why, when something as succinct as Pascal existed, anyone would use COBOL. Neverthless, I was a COBOL programmer for about 12 years but I believe my work gained immensely from that lucky break at the beginning and I was able to avoid having my mind crippled by COBOL - a task which was left to the lunacy of corporate life. It was fortunate that I didn't have my mind destroyed by COBOL as my first programming job involved at least 50% assembler programming, working on software that was originally developed in the early 1960s. That was an education! B
This reminds me of Dijkstra's rather famous 1968 letter to /Communications of the ACM/ "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" in which he argues for structured control statements. But he does not mention COBOL in it. (COBOL still sucks, BTW)
link: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Consider ed_Harmful.html
I also found this other link to his collected writings.
link: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/
--erikc
On 2010-10-04 11:45, Duke Normandin wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Treutwein Bernhard wrote:
Hi Bob,
[...]
Good luck with that. Experience has taught me that Dijkstra was right about COBOL.
just curious, what did Dijkstra say about COBOL, I know his nice
sentence:
The tools we use hav a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
[quote] Lack of structurability
In his letter to an editor in 1975 titled "How do we tell truths that might hurt?", which was critical of several programming languages contemporaneous with COBOL, computer scientist and Turing Award recipient Edsger Dijkstra remarked that "The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense."[6]
In his dissenting response to Dijkstra's article and the above "offensive statement", computer scientist Howard E. Tompkins defended structured COBOL: "COBOL programs with convoluted control flow indeed tend to 'cripple the mind'", but this was because "there are too many such business application programs written by programmers that have never had the benefit of structured COBOL taught well...".[7]
Additionally, the introduction of OO-COBOL has added support for object-oriented code as well as user-defined functions and user-defined data types to COBOL's repertoire. [/quote]
-- Oberon@lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon
Hi Bob,
[...]
Good luck with that. Experience has taught me that Dijkstra was right about COBOL.
just curious, what did Dijkstra say about COBOL, I know his nice sentence:
The tools we use hav a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
[quote] Lack of structurability
In his letter to an editor in 1975 titled "How do we tell truths that might hurt?", which was critical of several programming languages contemporaneous with COBOL, computer scientist and Turing Award recipient Edsger Dijkstra remarked that "The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense."[6]
In his dissenting response to Dijkstra's article and the above "offensive statement", computer scientist Howard E. Tompkins defended structured COBOL: "COBOL programs with convoluted control flow indeed tend to 'cripple the mind'", but this was because "there are too many such business application programs written by programmers that have never had the benefit of structured COBOL taught well...".[7]
Additionally, the introduction of OO-COBOL has added support for object- oriented code as well as user-defined functions and user-defined data types to COBOL's repertoire. [/quote]
yes - with COBOL they always add, they never take away, so it becomes like the attic in a 500-year-old country house.
Hi Bob,
[...]
Good luck with that. Experience has taught me that Dijkstra was right about COBOL.
just curious, what did Dijkstra say about COBOL, I know his nice sentence:
The tools we use hav a profound (and devious!) influence on our thinking.
2 things: 'the use of COBOL cripples the mind', and 'COBOL is for morons'. B
From: Bob Walkden <bob@web-options.com> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 15:31:44 +0100
... my studies were in languages and linguistics, ...
"Formal Languages" is one of the three pillars of Informatics. You could have done worse. Best Regards, ... Peter E. -- Telephone 1 360 450 2132. 7785886232 is gone. Shop pages http://carnot.yi.org/ accessible as long as the old drives survive; installation of NetBSD on new drives pending. Personal pages, http://members.shaw.ca/peasthope/ .
-----Original Message----- From: oberon-bounces@lists.inf.ethz.ch [mailto:oberon-bounces@lists.inf.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Duke Normandin Sent: Sunday, 3 October 2010 11:33 PM To: Frans-Pieter Vonck; ETH Oberon and related systems Subject: RE: [Oberon] Reiser - Wirth book
You could take a look a the book of Eric Nikitin, Into the realm of Oberon. It is a nice introduction into the formalism of programming and still used in the first year class programming at the University of Antwerp.
Yes I could do that, but.... I don't want to learn Oberon by being overwhelmed with Algebra, Calculus, EBNF, and all the other garbage that is too often introduced into the mystical realm of computer programming. IMO, there's no need for it _for most levels of application_. Does Nitikin present Oberon from "Quantum Physics" point of view, or merely in terms of the requirements of "Astrophysics"? :)
Personally I prefer Wirth's writing style rather than the "Learn Perl in 24 hours" or "Ada for Dummies" approach. Nikitin's book is at the level of "Sound, Light and Magnetism" ;-) I refrained from recommending it to you previously because of your previous programming experience. I would strongly recommend it to absolute beginners who had never written a program before. Despite that, I must admit I learnt one or two new things after reading it! If you are interested in investigating further, the listing on Amazon lets you view a few pages. Regards, Chris Chris Burrows CFB Software Astrobe v3.2: ARM Oberon-07 Development System http://www.astrobe.com
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:02:51 +1030 "Chris Burrows" <chris@cfbsoftware.com> wrote:
You could take a look a the book of Eric Nikitin, Into the realm of Oberon. It is a nice introduction into the formalism of programming and still used in the first year class programming at the University of Antwerp.
Yes I could do that, but.... I don't want to learn Oberon by being overwhelmed with Algebra, Calculus, EBNF, and all the other garbage that is too often introduced into the mystical realm of computer programming. IMO, there's no need for it _for most levels of application_. Does Nitikin present Oberon from "Quantum Physics" point of view, or merely in terms of the requirements of "Astrophysics"? :)
Personally I prefer Wirth's writing style rather than the "Learn Perl in 24 hours" or "Ada for Dummies" approach. Nikitin's book is at the level of "Sound, Light and Magnetism" ;-) I refrained from recommending it to you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ LOL... I don't mind Wirth's _writing style_ either. I simply don't relate to the _context_ in which Oberon seems to be habitually presented. This is nothing to me though. During my undergrad years at McGill U. in Montreal, I damn near flunked out of my first year because of the Physics course I stupidly chose as an elective. Fortunately for me, my then girlfriend's dad was head of the Nuclear Physics Dept. at McGill - and he liked me! Whew!! I got _a lot_ of extra help from that kind gentleman, much to his daughter's dismay, who would have been pleased to do _anything else_ but to listen to her dad rattle away about some aspect of high Physics and Calculus. :)
previously because of your previous programming experience. I would strongly recommend it to absolute beginners who had never written a program before. Despite that, I must admit I learnt one or two new things after reading it! If you are interested in investigating further, the listing on Amazon lets you view a few pages.
I'll have a look! Thanks for the tip. Best.. -- Duke
participants (8)
-
Bob Walkden -
Chris Burrows -
Duke Normandin -
dukeofperl＠ml1.net
-
erikc -
Frans-Pieter Vonck -
peasthope＠shaw.ca -
Treutwein Bernhard