🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1186@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> jont@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Jon Taylor) writes:
>gene schwartman writes
>>       ...How are you going to explain to a student that can
>>       barely understand how to write a decent algorithm, etc.. about parallel
>>       programming.
>
>...Couldn't it be the case that teaching parallel programming
>second to sequential is putting blinkers on students. Is it not
>possible that by teaching them to think of parallel algorithms first you
>may get a whole new set of novel answers to programming problems ?

I agree with Jon in concept but not with this particular example.  The
way people learn things best is to compare them to things they already know
or have experienced.  So in the case of teaching parallel algorithms, I
tend to believe that most people think sequentially, and have a difficult
time with parallel concepts.  On the other hand, object-oriented design
can more closely model many real-life problems than imperative languages
can, so yes, I agree with Jon that maybe there is a better approach when
it comes to teaching fundamental concepts.

>Slap me around the face is you think I am dreaming.

Relax!  No slaps are forthcoming.

  -- Jim Rudolf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
College of Oceanography                              Oregon State University
rudolf@oce.orst.edu    -or-    {tektronix,hp-pcd}!orstcs!oce.orst.edu!rudolf
                      "All opinions herein are mine"