<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>david rasch - making stuff work &#187; computer science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.davidrasch.com/tag/computer-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.davidrasch.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:53:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>code is a mass noun</title>
		<link>http://www.davidrasch.com/2007/11/13/code-is-a-mass-noun/</link>
		<comments>http://www.davidrasch.com/2007/11/13/code-is-a-mass-noun/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>drasch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Misc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[english]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grammar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syntax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidrasch.com/2007/11/13/code-is-a-mass-noun/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>During the Marketplace Morning Report on 11/13, there was a segment covering Google&#8217;s recent release of software and a bounty surrounding Cell phones. During this segment, the use of the word &#8220;code&#8221; followed conventions that aren&#8217;t preferred in the Computer Science community&#8211;academic or commercial. </p> <p>During the segment they refer to &#8220;based on a <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.davidrasch.com/2007/11/13/code-is-a-mass-noun/">code is a mass noun</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During the <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/episodes/show_rundown.php?show_id=15">Marketplace Morning Report</a> on 11/13, there was a segment covering Google&#8217;s recent release of software  and a bounty surrounding Cell phones.  During this segment, the use of the word &#8220;code&#8221; followed conventions that aren&#8217;t preferred in the Computer Science community&#8211;academic or commercial.  </p>
<blockquote><p>During the segment they refer to &#8220;based on a code that&#8217;s open&#8221;.  When code is used in this context, it&#8217;s collective and should be used without an indefinite article.  While, &#8220;based on code that&#8217;s open&#8221; would be correct.</p>
<p>Other appropriate uses:<br />
1. code<br />
2. source code<br />
3. the source code<br />
4. some source code (usually a part of a program)<br />
5. line of code (a single line of a program)<br />
6. a piece of code </p>
<p>The usage of &#8220;code&#8221; very much follows other words like &#8220;stuff&#8221; and &#8220;water&#8221;.  &#8220;code&#8221; is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun">mass noun</a> in the English language and thus cannot be preceded by numerals like &#8220;one code&#8221; (when the semantics refer to computer software).  As a result, it&#8217;s not used with the indefinite article a or an.</p>
<p>Improper uses (in all below, you can simply remove the &#8220;a&#8221; or &#8220;an&#8221; for a proper usage):<br />
I downloaded a code to solve that problem.<br />
Google released a source-code to mobile manufacturers.<br />
An open-source code would encourage developers.
</p></blockquote>
<p>All of the above reflects my opinion.  My wife, however will often say things such as &#8220;I am trying to debug a code that I wrote a few months ago.&#8221;  It also seems that in the non-CS/EE/CE fields of scientific research that this usage is quite common.  One of the libraries she uses in building her programs (not codes) is <a href="http://www.fftw.org/">FFTW</a> has a statement on their home page </p>
<blockquote><p>Our benchmarks, performed on on a variety of platforms, show that FFTW&#8217;s performance is typically superior to that of other publicly available FFT software, and is even competitive with vendor-tuned codes.</p></blockquote>
<p>This too uses code as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_noun">count noun</a> incorrectly. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.davidrasch.com/2007/11/13/code-is-a-mass-noun/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>don&#8217;t eat paste (learning PHP part iii)</title>
		<link>http://www.davidrasch.com/2006/10/16/dont-eat-paste-learning-php-part-iii/</link>
		<comments>http://www.davidrasch.com/2006/10/16/dont-eat-paste-learning-php-part-iii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:26:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>drasch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Learning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PHP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[learning php]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[php books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[programming]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidrasch.com/2006/10/16/dont-eat-paste-learning-php-part-iii/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Hi, David. This is an interesting approach, but I think it’s a solution to a slightly different problem than teaching someone PHP. Instead, it’s a solution to teaching someone the basics of building a web app and you just happen to use PHP to teach those concepts. A perfectly worthwhile and desirable goal, but <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.davidrasch.com/2006/10/16/dont-eat-paste-learning-php-part-iii/">don&#8217;t eat paste (learning PHP part iii)</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Hi, David. This is an interesting approach, but I think it’s a solution to a slightly different problem than teaching someone PHP. Instead, it’s a solution to teaching someone the basics of building a web app and you just happen to use PHP to teach those concepts. A perfectly worthwhile and desirable goal, but different.<br />
&#8230;
</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.davidrasch.com/2006/10/12/learning-sheltered-php-sans-bad-habits/#comment-333"><em>David Sklar</em></a></p>
<p>I agree and disagree with some of the points Sklar (sorry, two David&#8217;s makes this confusing) goes on to make.  If I may paraphrase, Sklar is raising a point which competes with that raised by <a href="http://benramsey.com/?p=166">Ben</a> in our initial discussion.  My initial suggestion in the discussion with Ben indicated that books should start by teaching PHP on the command-line and slowly build up to constructing a very lightweight MVC framework and example application.   One of Ben&#8217;s chief, and valid, concerns equated selling books about PHP with convincing readers or page-flippers that the book would teach them to build web pages in the first few chapters.  Or that individuals might be turned off if they weren&#8217;t creating XSS attacks willy-nilly by chapter 3.  I think the counter to this that Sklar raised is that by hiding the framework you turn off the people who don&#8217;t feel they&#8217;re really getting their feet wet with PHP.  They feel that by using your framework they aren&#8217;t learning the &#8216;real guts&#8217; of the language.  </p>
<p>This clearly relates directly to some of the arguments Sklar makes that other languages face this challenge as well, but PHP perhaps more so than others.  PHP digs its own hole here because unlike a .NET, Java, or a ColdFusion, PHP has built its name on easy to learn and get going.  You can pay $4.99/month and get a server running PHP in 10 minutes.  Writing an application in any of these other platforms can take orders of magnitude longer to setup, there&#8217;s an expectation of barrier to entry for learning, and often you have to buy pieces of it like an IDE.  Sklar indicates that it&#8217;s important to strike the balance between &#8220;a way to do things&#8221; and &#8220;the way to do things&#8221;. </p>
<p>The dilemma lies in choosing whether I ask the reader to take on faith that the framework underlying the first half of the book isn&#8217;t worth delving into right now, but is worth understanding later and either using the quick framework or garner enough knowledge of the principles to build your own.  Or, do I go back to my original plan of introducing PHP on the command-line as we built up a small framework and graduate up to a web page far later in the book.  </p>
<p>I have full confidence that either approach might work.  I know universities teach Physics both with and without calculus to which I&#8217;m sure the physics professors initially said &#8220;you can&#8217;t teach physics without calculus, it&#8217;s heresy!&#8221;  But, this day in age there&#8217;s only one physics.   I know my economics professor told me she didn&#8217;t like math, but she managed to teach a great class about economics concepts by moving lines back and forth on graphs.  </p>
<p>[tags]learning php, programming, computer science, php, php books[/tags]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.davidrasch.com/2006/10/16/dont-eat-paste-learning-php-part-iii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

