[ishkabible]

we seem to get tons of people that come here using Turbo C++. what on earth are the people teaching these classes thinking? it has it's little functions (like movexy and clrscr or what ever it is) that students learn to use witch are useless in any other application. can anyone explain there(professors) reasoning?

[JaKWaC]

My school (for the lower level classes) requires and supplies the latest version of Visual Studio Pro.

I'm not sure why others don't do the same or at least use the Express edition.

This post has been edited by JaKWaC: 13 December 2010 - 02:01 PM

[ishkabible]

it's good to set a stranded for the class that way you know what your turning in. i think there should be a modern free compiler used like gcc and a modern free OS like Debian and for each assignment give the exact command line arguments that the professor is going to compile each with. that way you get modern compiler/OS and there are no double standers plus it's free to anyone.

[JackOfAllTrades]

1. They're from Africa, the Middle East, South or East Asia.
2. They're lazy and just continue to use what they learned on because they can't be bothered to update their own skill set, i.e., inertia.
3. They don't give a rat's ass about their students' prospects for a job after they graduate.
4. They use one of the most popular textbooks in India, "Let Us C", which advocates using that because other options are "too complicated".

It's like taking your thoroughbreds and shooting them in a front leg and a back leg and then expecting them to run a race.

[ishkabible]

ok if all you have are computers with 33mhz procs you get a pass but other than that it's total bullshit. we should have some posted thread on either dealing with Turbo C++ or determining if you actually have to use it.

[JackOfAllTrades]

We actually do have several, such as this one from the C++ FAQs pinned topic, which if people bother to actually read it (doubtful, unfortunately) links to this topic entitled "Out dated curriculums. Do you care that you are being cheated out of your money?", which is another extensive treatise on the subject.

We go around on this all the time; it falls on deaf ears, primarily because it appears the secondary education system of India uses Turbo C/C++ as its standard.

[SixOfEleven]

It is unreasonable to force a student to use any software. Turbo C++ or Debian with G C C. You demanding that they use Debain with G C C is just as absurd. Not everybody likes G C C or Linux, no matter the distro. Even Linux users argue of which distro to use. Some say Ubuntu, others say Debian, etc.

I do see the need for some sort of standard for instructors to set the bar with. Granted the bar can be pretty low sometimes. It is an imperfect world and an imperfect solution. As JackOfAllTrades said, there is inertia, ie things are slow to change.

That said, C++ has standards. As long as the standards are followed it shouldn't matter which compiler you use. The basic code is the same. The big difference between versions of C++ are the differences between libraries. Turbo C++ is a bad choice but saying just because Debian and G C C are free that everybody should use them puts you in the same boat. That is my IMHO.

[JackOfAllTrades]

It's not even a free OS issue, as many of these students come here trying to get this antiquated piece of 16-bit DOS-based crap to work with a modern, 64-bit OS. It's an issue of being the wrong tool in this day and age.

On top of that, invariably these people are also being taught to use void main(), gets(), fflush(stdin), horrible single-letter variable names, incredibly inane order-of-precedence questions using code that relies on undefined behavior, and the Borland graphics library. None of these are proper or standard by any reasonably recent definition of "standard". So it extends beyond the use of the ancient tool, right down into the lessons being taught. Once you've started teaching people the WRONG way to do things, it's much harder to UN-teach them the wrong ways and get them onto the RIGHT way.

[no2pencil]

JackOfAllTrades, on 13 December 2010 - 05:56 PM, said:

it's much harder to UN-teach them the wrong ways and get them onto the RIGHT way.

Even worse, when they come here for help they get scolded for using code they were not taught, &/or get side tracked on correctness rather than the question.

[ishkabible]

im not demanding im just say that thats what the professor will use to compile it so if you use some platform specific code and you teacher says 'sorry it didn't compile' it's your fault. im not trying to force any one to do anything, just suggesting that there be a reasonable free stranded. sorry if i was unclear.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 13 December 2010 - 05:40 PM

[bamboocha]

talking about old things ... is pascal used anywhere else in the world ?
EDIT: I mean in schools don't get me wrong

This post has been edited by bamboocha: 18 December 2010 - 06:40 AM

[macosxnerd101]

That's a different question. You're welcome to open your own thread in the Student Campus if you want to discuss that.

[ccubed]

SixOfEleven, on 13 December 2010 - 03:41 PM, said:

It is unreasonable to force a student to use any software. Turbo C++ or Debian with G C C. You demanding that they use Debain with G C C is just as absurd. Not everybody likes G C C or Linux, no matter the distro. Even Linux users argue of which distro to use. Some say Ubuntu, others say Debian, etc.

I do see the need for some sort of standard for instructors to set the bar with. Granted the bar can be pretty low sometimes. It is an imperfect world and an imperfect solution. As JackOfAllTrades said, there is inertia, ie things are slow to change.

That said, C++ has standards. As long as the standards are followed it shouldn't matter which compiler you use. The basic code is the same. The big difference between versions of C++ are the differences between libraries. Turbo C++ is a bad choice but saying just because Debian and G C C are free that everybody should use them puts you in the same boat. That is my IMHO.

In a perfect world, all compilers follow the same standards. In our world, the c++ standards are neither completely transparent nor completely followed. For example, currently, only Visual Studio supports TR1 natively. etc, etc, so on and so forth.

That's why they require one or the other in the classroom, you can still use whatever you want in your own room on your own computer, but if it doesn't work on their pc's, it just doesn't work.

Consequently, this is also a form of a test. Considering you are not always going to be able to choose your own tools in the real world. If they require you to use Ruby on your first job, are you going to say no until you find one that uses something you like? If all they have is a dos compiler, are you going to refuse the job because of that?

I don't know, maybe people would, but as for me, I wouldn't. I consider it a challenge.

Addendum: Also, if you're a computer science major and you're complaining about having to use any OS you should just quit now and save yourself the trouble.

In other news: I'm totally back for my once every six months post. <3

This post has been edited by ccubed: 20 December 2010 - 04:13 PM

[oscode]

SixOfEleven, on 13 December 2010 - 10:41 PM, said:

It is unreasonable to force a student to use any software. Turbo C++ or Debian with G C C. You demanding that they use Debain with G C C is just as absurd.

That's like saying being forced to use a gun in a war is as absurd as being made to use a crayon. Turbo C++ isn't just another compiler, it's a piece of crap and should be abandoned entirely. The only justifiable reason for using it would be in maintaining some incredibly complex old system which would cost too much to upgrade to real C++.

Quote

I do see the need for some sort of standard for instructors to set the bar with. Granted the bar can be pretty low sometimes. It is an imperfect world and an imperfect solution. As JackOfAllTrades said, there is inertia, ie things are slow to change.

Right, which is why we should move over to compilers which have developers that are actually making an effort to stick to standards, and which run on modern operating systems. If I had very limited funding for my education, for example if I was being educated in an average Indian university, I'd want to use good free software and have budget spent on professional lecturers and books. Debian was just an example, I can't imagine any intelligent person caring whether it was Debian, Ubuntu or any other reasonably well maintained free operating system.

Quote

That said, C++ has standards. As long as the standards are followed it shouldn't matter which compiler you use. The basic code is the same. The big difference between versions of C++ are the differences between libraries. Turbo C++ is a bad choice but saying just because Debian and G C C are free that everybody should use them puts you in the same boat. That is my IMHO.

And that is the point in avoiding Turbo C++, it doesn't follow standards and the basic code isn't the same.

This post has been edited by oscode: 26 December 2010 - 08:12 PM

[SixOfEleven]

You totally misunderstood what I was trying to say oscode. I'm not pro Turbo C++. I'm far from pro Turbo C++. It had its kick at the cat and should be allowed to pass quietly into oblivion. My point was more that requiring a student to use Linux over another OS doesn't make sense to me. G C C is a modern compiler and available on most modern platforms. Requiring G C C for compiling projects does make sense.