Homer wrote:
Mark Kent spake thusly:
Agreed. I'd like to see a return to teaching "computing" instead of
"Microsoft" in our schools.
Yes, our schools seem to be breeding a generation of "software engineers"
with the computing skills of a receptionist.
Just how essential is it to learn the intricacies of Word®, anyway?
Frankly those schools could save a fortune, and their pupils would be
considerably better off, if they ditched their computers altogether, and
invested in some decent books.
I have one here by Niklaus Wirth they can borrow.
If it were a vocational school or professional secretary course, it is more
important that one understand the concepts of formatting text, copy, cut and
paste, file organisation, saving, renaming, retrieving, etc. Then the
individual can make use of any software office automation text application.
It is more important in software engineering to learn the concepts of
structured software designing. Learning to organise and break down software
tasks into assimilable components, usage of pseudo code, data organisation, etc.
It may be old school, but one does not need a special software development
application to program, if they learn old school techniques. With proper
technique, it does not matter what code is used, assembly, C, FORTRAN, ALGOL,
BASIC, COBOL, FORTH, PL1, RPG, and etc. Coding is technician work.
Seems that schools are turning out script kiddies programming technicians
skilled in higher level languages only. These are fine for some tasks. When
it comes to operating system level programming, one needs tighter code.
When tight code is executed on a fast computer, then it is just that much
faster. When operated on a slower one, execution speed is still acceptable.
This is one of the reasons why Linux is much more efficient at tasks than
Windows. At 2 MB, Beryl is a good example of efficient 3D desktop work.
--
HPT
|
|
