Yeah righto. I just didnt like your example that assumed that an ace programmer would also fail the theory. I cant say that I ever did any serious hard work for SDD, and managed to pull out ok...Casmira said:Im using an example, idiot
How does being good at writing code make one good at writing good algorithms?Li0n said:because bob is good at programming then he'll also be good at writing algorithms as they are similar.
????? I havnt seen any 10 marks questions in SDD about thisCasmira said:lets not forget those 10 mark questions that involve "asessing the solution of a program" and if all you know is VB6 then youd probably only know what code too use
Extended response?acmilan said:????? I havnt seen any 10 marks questions in SDD about this
Bob sounds like me - except for the last line, seeing as I was 2nd on the State order of merit for SDD in 2003. That Bob can program gives him at least a conceptual advantage in algorithm and system designs, that Bob is finished earlier gives him more time to study (not that I did) etc etc.Casmira said:Im talking about an ace program on their own, ie. lets call him Bob
Bob will go into class with a head the size of a beachball, will do the practical tasks in 15minutes while everyone takes 45minutes and sit rest of lesson looking on the internet, and never studies
Bob will ace everyone in the programming assignment
Bob will fail theory exams and theory HSC ;D
I would disagree, they are related: in most cases those that are best at writing code, write the best code. In the SDD course, things are generally simple. The best advantage you can have is being an accomplished programmer. You grasp quickly what needs to be done and you can quickly bring that to fruition. The elegance of the solution is of secondary importance, but it does come, mainly from experience and confidence in any case given tight time requirements in SDD exams.sunny said:Bob may be able good at writing code - he might be able to hack anything out of thin air and still make it work - but that does not necessarily mean his code is efficient, concise, or of a good design at all.
i think im missing the point of your argument here sunny. I agree with hornetfig. Someone who is good at writing code will be good at writing algorithms. The thought processes involved are similar; they know the tools (in terms of control structures, data structures, etc.) that will aid them in creating a solution. Their ability to code will inevitably reflect their ability to write algorthms.sunny said:How does being good at writing code make one good at writing good algorithms?
Bob may be able good at writing code - he might be able to hack anything out of thin air and still make it work - but that does not necessarily mean his code is efficient, concise, or of a good design at all.
me too...lets be best friends lolhornetfig said:seeing as I was 2nd on the State order of merit for SDD
Not necessarily. Algorithms and languages are taught separately in university. Sure some similarities exist but being good at one does not necessarily make you good at the otherraymes said:i think im missing the point of your argument here sunny. I agree with hornetfig. Someone who is good at writing code will be good at writing algorithms. The thought processes involved are similar; they know the tools (in terms of control structures, data structures, etc.) that will aid them in creating a solution. Their ability to code will inevitably reflect their ability to write algorthms.
i didnt say they were exactly the same but as i said, the thought processes behind writing each are the same. i dont care what theoretical differences there are between the two - take common sense and realise that being good at one will usually mean you are good at the other.acmilan said:Not necessarily. Algorithms and languages are taught separately in university. Sure some similarities exist but being good at one does not necessarily make you good at the other
Well i have physical proof that its not always the case. When done professionally, the two serve different functions and are designed by different people. Two of the guys that were in my class when i did SDD were experts with coding in languages but despite that wrote their algorithms crap and couldnt understand any algorithms given in exams and hence whenever algorithms were asked to be designed they always wrote it in C because thats all they knew.raymes said:i didnt say they were exactly the same but as i said, the thought processes behind writing each are the same. i dont care what theoretical differences there are between the two - take common sense and realise that being good at one will usually mean you are good at the other.
In a course as simple as SDD - then yes maybe if you can write code it means you can write good algorithms - but it is my opinion that is only because of the simplicity of SDD. As a matter of fact, for SDD I think you can not even be a code monkey and come up with brilliant algorithms.raymes said:The thought processes involved are similar; they know the tools (in terms of control structures, data structures, etc.) that will aid them in creating a solution. Their ability to code will inevitably reflect their ability to write algorthms.