_bloodborn01_ wrote:Adding to the earlier question you answered about The Bible vs The book of Mormon, would it not seem as though the book written closest to the ministry of Christ would be more accurate than one written by a man from newyork in the 1800's?
Maybe, if the Book of Mormon had been written in the 1800s. It might interest you to know that Joseph Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon, he translated it. It was actually written over the course of several centuries, like the Bible, with most of it being written between 600 BC and AD 450 with some parts included that are much older, dating back to the time shortly after the fall of the Tower of Babel.
_bloodborn01_ wrote:
After all the Bible has been proven to be the most historically preserved and credible book in all of history. Also all of the main translations come from the original greek and Hebrew text.
Wasnt what he translated the Egyptian dialect on the golden plate that was revealed to him in 1823? What about the king james version, i dont het it. The kjv i meant to capture the poetic flow of the hebrew and greek. The nasb and the esv are the most word for word of the greek and hebrew. Other translations are needed because the greek and hebrew words have deeper meaning that one translation could not capture. They other translations do not come from othef translations of other translations. They are translated from scratch from tge original languages.
_bloodborn01_ wrote:Wasnt what he translated the Egyptian dialect on the golden plate that was revealed to him in 1823?
It was Refromed Egyptian, written on a set of many plates.
_bloodborn01_ wrote:
What about the king james version, i dont het it. The kjv i meant to capture the poetic flow of the hebrew and greek. The nasb and the esv are the most word for word of the greek and hebrew. Other translations are needed because the greek and hebrew words have deeper meaning that one translation could not capture. They other translations do not come from othef translations of other translations. They are translated from scratch from tge original languages.
Not sure what you're asking here. Do you mean to ask why I use the King James Version?
(Copied from Arch's thread, thought I'd ask the other computer scientist on the board)
So I'm going to make the (Probably reasonable) assumption that you experienced a fairly normal CS education in college. Start out with C/C++/Java programming, get good at that for a year or so, then learn things like Assembly, computer architecture, OOP, Algorithms, and so forth.
A friend has proposed an alternative solution which I'm thinking may be a good idea. Instead of learning high-level programming first, start at the Assembly level. He suggests that we use a good hypothetical computer (Like MIX) to teach the basics of zero-abstraction computing. Learn really basic Assembly operations (like arithmetic, jumping, and a general program flow with a stack-based idea) for the first semester. Then learn things like C and C++ which provide abstraction but still allow Assembly operations. His thought is that if you learn the low-level stuff, not only will you appreciate high-level more, but you'll associate the abstracted concepts with what the CPU is actually doing, thus allowing the programmer a better handle on programming as a whole.
Sometimes. The ability to pick your battles is one of the best things you can learn in life.
Deepfreeze32 wrote:(Copied from Arch's thread, thought I'd ask the other computer scientist on the board)
So I'm going to make the (Probably reasonable) assumption that you experienced a fairly normal CS education in college. Start out with C/C++/Java programming, get good at that for a year or so, then learn things like Assembly, computer architecture, OOP, Algorithms, and so forth.
A friend has proposed an alternative solution which I'm thinking may be a good idea. Instead of learning high-level programming first, start at the Assembly level. He suggests that we use a good hypothetical computer (Like MIX) to teach the basics of zero-abstraction computing. Learn really basic Assembly operations (like arithmetic, jumping, and a general program flow with a stack-based idea) for the first semester. Then learn things like C and C++ which provide abstraction but still allow Assembly operations. His thought is that if you learn the low-level stuff, not only will you appreciate high-level more, but you'll associate the abstracted concepts with what the CPU is actually doing, thus allowing the programmer a better handle on programming as a whole.
What think you?
I think that isn't terrible advice, but it may not be quite the payoff you might hope for. For instance, right now at work I'm building a group management/authorization API. That kind of work is at a high enough level of abstraction that it literally does me no good to know what's going on at the digital logic level. I don't need to know how memory is being managed in the cache, or any of that. The only time I can think of when something like that might be useful is in performance tuning.
So overall my answer to you is: What is it you want to do once you've graduated and are out here in the world with us? Do Databases tickle your tummy? Do you daydream about designing your own operating system? Do you want to get into game design? The answer to that question is the most important one, because the skills you'll need depend upon it. There's such a huge variety of skills out there that nobody can master them all and stay current, so you have to start thinking about specialization.
Now I'm gonna go check ArchAngel's thread to see how close our answers were
Just posted my answer. I think you were a little more diplomatic about it than me.
You bring up a good point on the different areas on programming to get into. Now, most people probably won't have a great idea when just starting out (at least half will want to do game development, though), so an intro class should be geared to getting people a little taste of the different flavors.
Good point. When I was working on my degree I was sure I was going to be focusing on Operating Systems and database design. The ebbs and currents of available jobs is how I arrived at my current skillset. Just goes to show that a degree doesn't prepare you for a job: It prepares you to LEARN to do a job.
To clarify, I don't 100% agree with his idea. I'd rather see a better intro course than what we have now (At my university, at least: intro is python. ugh... Used to be VB.NET). I'd like to see more low-level stuff, but I'm hugely biased.
I'd rather write assembly and low-level code than have to write code for something like a web site.
How do you feel about teaching different languages in undergrad? Here, we currently learn C++. It used to be that CS students were taught Java. Now there's been currents drifting back to Java. I know for a year, the programming assignments were language agnostic (With restrictions; you must use C, C++, Java, etc. No lisp, smalltalk, Pascal, etc.), but that switched to strictly C++.
I think they'd be best served to pick a language and stick to it... The most important thing in learning to program is to think in that logical way, and not be distracted by syntax. If an undergrad can choose between courses on different languages, then all it really becomes is an overglorified IT tech school.
I majored in Computer Science and minored in Computer Information Science. The CMSC major used Java, the CMIS courses used C++. I stumbled at first because I was more focused on syntax and procedures than on concepts, and it was an uphill battle to get back on track.
I agree. But also choose a language that won't promote (or at least facilitate) poor programming practices. Obviously, no language does this poorly, but scripting languages often give more leeway for poor design than strongly OOP languages.
ArchAngel wrote:I agree. But also choose a language that won't promote (or at least facilitate) poor programming practices. Obviously, no language does this poorly, but scripting languages often give more leeway for poor design than strongly OOP languages.
The man speaks truth.
Which is why it's baffling to me that they'd even consider Python...
