Questions for you glass-panel folks

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
ouse.com...
Mxsmanic wrote:
xyzzy writes:

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.

This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the
exception
of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly
language.

Bull****. It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
degree. And numerous other universities required it as well. That was in
the past, obviously. But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students to
some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.

MX read an article about it one time, he didn't need to go to any classes,
he already knows more than you!

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:37:43 -0500, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
.. .
WingFlaps writes:

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
Reality XP
avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to
the
real thing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAA A!!!!!!!!!!

How would you know what the real thing was like sim-boi???

Is it still posting around here? I killfiled him months ago. Why do
people persist in answering?

Besides, RealityXP only provides an interface between the official
Garmin software trainer and MSFS, it doesn't simulate anything.

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
ouse.com...
Darkwing wrote:
The first computer I owned was a nightmare, it had no hard drive, you had
to load all the operating system with disks everytime you booted it up,
most of the commands were done in DOS. That pales in comparison to a new
computer with WinXP, but I wouldn't go back to what I used to have to do
just because it worked well at the time but I have always liked new
technology, it keeps me interested.

You had disks? Paper tape and punch cards were an advance - I remember
having to load the boot loader in machine code via the front panel
switches...

I'm just not that old! This was early 80's and it was state of the art at
the time, got it as a Christmas present as a kid. I remember the first time
I seen full motion video off a CD, it was Encarta or something, I thought it
was the most amazing thing I had ever seen!

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:37:43 -0500, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
WingFlaps writes:

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
Reality XP
avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the simulation to
the
real thing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAA AA!!!!!!!!!!

How would you know what the real thing was like sim-boi???

Is it still posting around here? I killfiled him months ago. Why do
people persist in answering?

Sport.

Darkwing wrote:
"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
ouse.com...
Mxsmanic wrote:
xyzzy writes:

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.
This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the
exception
of those who were actually training to write programs in assembly
language.
Bull****. It was a requirement in my comp sci department for a B.S.
degree. And numerous other universities required it as well. That was in
the past, obviously. But any decent comp sci program still requires, at
the very least, a machine architecture course which introduces students to
some machine's instruction set, the assembler language for it, and
hopefully ties those constructs to a higher level language like C.

MX read an article about it one time, he didn't need to go to any classes,
he already knows more than you!

Silly me...

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Dylan Smith writes:

And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
and C++ code?

It isn't because they don't know assembler. They just aren't very
good programmers.

Any programmers, certainly any writing C or C++, need to have had
exposure to assembly language.

Too time-consuming and completely unnecessary.

Knowledge at the raw iron level is also very useful when debugging C
code. You won't have debug symbols for everything (or indeed source
code for everything).

Modern debuggers make this largely unnecessary, and writing code
carefully to begin with greatly diminishes the need for debugging and
the complexity of doing so.

No wonder you couldn't make a living as a programmer.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

WingFlaps writes:

Well what do you expect? It's not a simulation but a game (and not
very good at that) in every repect.

It's a simulation, not a game. The Garmin 430/530 are simulated by
Reality XP avionics in all details, and you can go directly from the
simulation to the real thing.

Idiot. You don't know **** from shinola.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

xyzzy writes:

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do.

This has never been a requirement for computer programmers, with the
exception of those who were actually training to write programs in
assembly language.

You still have to learn the basics before you can learn the modern
stuff.

It's a good idea, but it's hardly necessary. In the future, the basic
stuff will be skipped, especially for commercial pilots.


Never? More bull **** from an asshole who doesn't know **** from
shinola.

Of course, no one will have to learn to walk. We'll all just start
running.

I'd call you a moron, but that would be boosting your IQ by several
million orders of magnitude.

On Mar 6, 11:25 am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-03-05, Dan wrote:

A better analogy would be requiring all new computer programmers to
learn assembler, which as far as I know they still do. You still have
to learn the basics before you can learn the modern stuff.

Nope.

There may be one that I know in a company of +500.

And you wonder why they still code buffer overflows into their C code
and C++ code?

There's nothing like stepping through assembler and seeing your code
munch the return address on the stack to understand why it's so
important to do basic things like check buffers.

You can always tell programmers who don't understand what the raw iron
is basically doing, too - huge convoluted nested 'if' statements where
some simple bit twiddling would suffice.

Any programmers, certainly any writing C or C++, need to have had
exposure to assembly language. The architecture doesn't matter, a simple
8 bit one would do, the principles are the same. Most good university
courses will still include assembly language when teaching students.

Knowledge at the raw iron level is also very useful when debugging C
code. You won't have debug symbols for everything (or indeed source code
for everything).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

To clarify -- 90% of those programmers either know or have been
exposed to assembly language, but none *use* it -- that was my point.

Dan

On Mar 6, 3:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Modern debuggers make this largely unnecessary, and writing code carefully to
begin with greatly diminishes the need for debugging and the complexity of
doing so.

I am totally flabbergasted...

And here we were, writing code and actually charging our customers for
Unit testing, as well as component Integration and testing, when all
we need is one of them there modern debuggers!!!

Amazing!!!!


Dan