Talk to a girl who is in her last semesters of software engineering (basically doing her intership)

I'm well aware but at least they try to teach something of value. CE is pretty shit tier as well but at least it keeps scares off most of the braindead retards who somehow make it into software engineering.

...

I'm thinking of spending the next 4 years of my life getting an Electrical Engineering degree. Is it worth it?

LOL

1. Become hot
2. Teach programming
Congratulations you now have an army of beckies.

Stop complaining faggot.
And actually teach them to be good programmers

she will get hired while you sit around in forever NEETDOM

I'm a Computer Engineering undergraduate (actually, my course it's just an EE course with some CE classes added on top) at my third and last year, but I've yet to see a single line of C or C++
Maybe we are going to see something in the postgrad

We had Javascript and HTML as introduction to programming in EE course. Then intro to C in second semester. I studed exactly 0 hours for both courses and got highest possible grades without any effort. I actually expected that we would learn something about algorithms and data structures, but we just spent all the time learning about syntax and arrays, we haven't even mentioned linked lists, nothing about big O notation, no recursion, heck there was even nothing about OOP or functional programming, well they didn't even explain differences between paradigms for that matter, just "write this to do this". Oh and what realy ground my gears was when professor said "We won't mess with the compilers, just download Visual Studio." - How is installing 16GB IDE easier than installing gcc and typing 2 words in the terminal? And yes before you ask some people actually managed to fail the course. Programming course should be at least as hard as mathematics course. If I can pass it without doing any work then it's way too easy.

This has literally been me in every CS qualification I've ever done, which is great because I can spend my entire lessons coding my own stuff and just pop in when I hear something I might not fully understand.

What are you, underage?

But did you fuck her or did you pussy out?

Protip: that's exactly how introduction to programming ought to be. Algorithms, data structures, non-imperative programming paradigms, programming development environments and practises, can all live in their own dedicated classes.

I was surprised how many more women there are in EE than in CS and how much more competent they are. I could say I fell in love with one of my professors. EE girls >>>>> CS girls.

Kys tbh famalam

Your virginity is really not that precious.

What are you, a burgerfag?

When meeting with my freshman advisor when I started my CS degree, my lack of knowledge on linked lists was the only thing that stopped me from being able to skip the CS 101 class. It was the kind of thing that advanced HS students learned, except I went to a shitty school. But was a fundamental part of the most basic CS class.

How the fuck do you get a degree without knowing linked lists? It's the most basic function of a fucking pointer outside of the instruction pointer.

Yes, dedicated classes for those topics that cover subject in depth are a good idea, but there is no reason to not mention some basic concepts in introduction to programming. My idea of what introduction to programming should look like is similar to htdp.org/2003-09-26/Book/curriculum-Z-H-1.html Remember, we are talking about courses on university level, not high school (even though HTDP is taught at some high schools, so there is no complaining that it's too hard). I don't know why we wasted time learning about DOM, when students didn't have any idea of what an object is. Lecture was literary "write .hide() to hide this text...". No matter how you put, it this was not a good introduction to programming.

The problem I've seen when trying to help other students, was that they had no clear idea of concept hiding behind syntax. If course had focused more on basics of "scary algorithms" and "arcane data structures" people would have actually learned something useful. Only thing they've learned is how to copy homework from their facebook group. Which is another thing that pissed me off, since seing people using their phones to photograph the screen and uploading those pictures with code to facebook made my skin crawl. But, ultimately it's a waste of time complaing about any of this: you can study whatever you want by yourself.

lmao retard.

she's my cousin and conservative christian, so incest is wrong for her or some shit like that.

because she went to a shitty degree mill college.

stopped reading right there

(check'd)
You're right, user.
I'm in fact on the verge of dropping out.

nobody will ask you a degree if you build your own bussiness user.

the jew scam of college is a scam to be a wageslave.

This.
t. did nothing with my degree except please my parents. built my unrelated business. everyone assumes I have a degree in whatever service I provide them at that time.

Not entirely true.
There are pajeet-free environments where an academic background is required.

EE is heavily outsourced to India here in the USA. If your heart is set on EE make sure you take some business, marketing, and management courses. EE jobs in the US right now are essentially spending all day on phone telling street shitters what to do and then fixing t he bag of shit when it's "finished". Essentially a dead field. Maybe get a materials science or other applied science degree.

You do realize that EE is a rather broad degree. There are plenty of jobs that require a local presence and can't be outsourced to India.

That's retarded. I just signed up for my first classes in a mechanical engineering program and "introduction to c programming" is in my first semester class schedule. What school did she go to? It must be shit. You can't tell me my ME class schedule requires more competency than her goddamn software engineering program.

In other news, behold my shitty garbage linked list.

she went to those literally unversity of phoenix garage colleges.

Even at competent schools SE is taught like this.

behold, a linked list in OCaml:type 'a linked = Nil | Cons of 'a * 'a linked

exit();

Why is an external library being used to display a linked list in a fucking GUI?! Wtf is this?!

youtube.com/watch?v=x_kXyyJepIU

is just a demo bro.

>>>Holla Forums

Except it is, I don't have time for dumb whores.

It's already part of the standard library.

STEM has been highly diluted
Less and less people do things outside of school and all the student does is learn to pass the exam

Me and buddy of mine are both electrical engineers working on prof project (that we get money for) and are currently gathering a team for uni funded project
We rubbed sholders with a lot of older experienced students that are going out of uni for a year or two.
They fucking don't know about Ohms law or Thevenins law.
They never seen etchant or made any circuit out of desire to make it.

I spent 50$ of my last money on ebay electronics parts and they probably spent it on going to caffees and playing billiard

Really? I'm 99% into software related stuff but even I know Ohm's law, though I must admit that I had never even heard of Thevenins law before. Despite doing mostly software stuff I've gone through the process of designing a pcb and having it fabricated to compliment some software I was writing.

i'm pretty sure every field has always been 'diluted'.
young people having fun and spending money and time on socializing going out instead of electronics and shitposting on imageboards, what a horrifying thought.

you are like r9k without the self-awareness

r9k is self aware? Since when?

maybe that's not the right word, but they hate themselves and want to die, or at least they should

Most colleges are shit, but not all of them.

Did your college hand out barf bags in that class?

I'm teaching myself python now as my first language and she completed a four year program of just learning that? What the hell?

No, it wasn't necessary since every class before it involved Java. Felt like a breath of fresh air.

But can you fizzbuzz?

I started learning recently, so no.

Should have gotten a four year degree

True. I have one in Neuroscience but this will help in experiment construction.

fizzbuzz is nothing. a real challenge is fizzbuzz(n):(* an implementation of fizzbuzz(2): a fizzbuzz containing *2* errors *)let fizzbuzz () = for i = 1 to 100 do match i mod 3, i mod 5 with | 0, 0 -> print_string "Fizzbuzz" | 0, _ -> print_string "Fizz" | _, 0 -> print_string "Buzz" | _, _ -> print_int i; print_newline () doneerror #1 is that "Fizzbuzz" != "FizzBuzz". error #2 is obvious with OCaml knowledge or a look at the output.

I amend my statement. Yes I can fizzbuzz.

Welcome home. You are going to hate it here. Especially after you have realized that you have nowhere else to go.

Why am I allowed to do this?

var=''for i in range(0, 100): if i%3==0: var+='Fizz' if i%5==0: var+='Buzz' if var=='': var=i print(var) var=''

Also where do I go to learn how to program?

I'm oddly excited about this.

but why

you have failed, user.

sed -i s/'0, 100'/'1, 101'/g fizzbuzz.py
Why do I have to add 1 to my second argument in the range function?

python's behavior here is usually what people want. But, gosh, it's not very intuitive is it? Not something I'd expect from a language designed to be easy to learn. Hmm hmm hmm. Well at least the language has no weird stuff like generators, list comprehensions, decorators, subtle tuples, a meta-object protocol, += operators (Guido didn't want those; ancient Python lacked them and most of the rest of this feature list), case sensitivity, 1/2==0...

Because it starts counting at 0, and it's extremely convenient for range(100) to yield 100 values. It starts counting at 0 because indexing starts at 0. I'm not sure if indexing from 0 is actually a good idea, but almost all languages do it. I need to use Lua some more to see how 1-indexing works out.

Fixed in Python 3.
Decorators are fine because they're really easy to use (not implement) even without knowing the details of how they work. By the time you do need to know the details it's probably not too hard to wrap your head around them.
People get the hang of list comprehensions pretty quickly in my experience and there are always ways to do without.
I don't think case sensitivity is that much of a problem for beginners, and it's much better for everyone else.
I don't like how Python pretends tuples are lists with parentheses instead of square brackets.
Most of the other things on your list are optional complexity, it's fine to have them as long as you don't need them before you're ready for them. Python isn't created for teaching, it's used for that because it happens to be good for it. Being easy to learn is not a terminal goal.

Only languages based on BCPL and C index from 0 because arrays are based on pointer arithmetic. Fortran, Cobol, Algol, Basic, Ada, PL/I, Pascal, Eiffel, Snobol, etc. all index from 1 or have the option to let you choose per array. You say 1..100, not 1..101 with 101 excluded, and you say Monday..Friday, not Monday..Saturday with Saturday excluded. It also makes more sense when you consider that a lot of types in a computer are finite. What if you want Tuesday to Sunday? How would you write that if you had to use exclusive bounds? What day comes after Sunday that you could say "1 day less than" and get Sunday?

Edsger Dijkstra's take is relevant here:
cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html
I don't know if I agree with him.

This is good bait

You need to do both. Getting drunk alone doesn't count.
t. not that other user

Yet people still use Python2.x when 3.x is available and superior.

Do you use Python? Half the posts you're replying to have nothing to do with 2 versus 3.
The main reason to use Python 2 is that a ton of existing software is written in it.

I still want to know why I'm allowed to increment a string by another string. Is it an alias for append? What real-world use is there for the feature?

That's how you concatenate strings in Python. It's not an alias for append, strings don't have an append method.
"x += y" is generall equivalent to "x = x + y".
Other languages that let you do that include Pascal, Java, Ruby, Javascript and C++. Perl and PHP let you concatenate strings with a . operator. Haskell provides a ++ infix operator.
People couldn't tell what you were asking about because it's not at all unusual.

Sounds like sour grapes, virgin-kun.

It's the same shit but with fewer libraries and worse backwards compatibility. There's literally zero reason to use it.

The reason the languages that come from math rather than engineering index from 1 is because mathematics didn't originally have a 0 and even though they figured that out over a thousand years ago they stuck with the notation. On computers, it makes no sense to index from 1 as it's inefficient. While you can hide the inefficiency when treating the index as some sort of index type, there will be times where you need to convert the type (e.g., user input, serialization, etc.) and you'll introduce pointless decrements at that point.

hello niggers.

No, 1-indexing makes perfect sense, mathematically. The highest index equals the length of the list. 0 isn't particularly sensible.
Indexing from 0 gives you the abhorrent property, in C, that a[b] == *(a + b) == b[a]. If you're working with pointers and you hate abstraction then it makes sense, maybe. Any effect decrementing has on efficiency might as well be a rounding error, it doesn't matter.

Proper unicode support, formatting string literals, sensible division behavior, range dict_keys etcetera are lazy, generalized unpacking, optional static typing, print is a real function, syntax for declaring classes is less stupid, and a lot of other things.

You don't actually know C, do you?
Ah yes, math people. This is why we don't let you write languages or network services anymore.

You don't believe me? Watch this:
$ cat test.c#include int main (void) { int i = 3; int *p = &i; printf("%d %d %d\n", p[0], *(p + 0), 0[p]);}$ tcc -run test.c3 3 3

The image is to show syntax highlighing only and has errata.
[[$]] containers.;;-> Linked ListThis is a simple linked list using the Listable trait which allows you to addthis trait to your struct. prev: Listable*?. next: Listable*?.).$::LinkedList(T) < #( -> $::count: i32. $::head: Listable(T)*?. ;; Listable(T) means that the type implementing ;; Listable must be T. ? is for $::[[utils]]::Optional. $::tail: Listable(T)*?. $::add < %({&this item: Listable(T)* after: Listable(T)*?} -> !this::head? ( this::head = item. this::tail = item. $!. ;; return void ) !after? after = this::tail. after::next::prev = item. item::next = after::next::prev. item::prev = after. after::next = item. count++. ). $::remove < %({&this after: Listable(T)*?} Listable(T)*? -> after == list::tail? $=nil. item: Listable(T) = !after? list::head : after::next. item == list::tail? list::tail = item::next. item == list::head? list::head = item::next. item::next::prev = after. after::next = item::next. item::prev = nil. item::next = nil. item). ;; whatever else like find, etc.).[[$]] main.$i::item)}::decompose!}}. )}. ;; destructor autocalled0).

I won't make a bad argument for 0-indexing when Dijkstra has done it better: cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html

There was nothing wrong with str treated as utf8 like in C and Linux.
.format() was backported.
Integer division being special-cased to change the type is not sensible.
xrange() and .iteritems() were fine.
Unpacking should be avoided when possible as it leads to unreadable code.
Available in 2.7 via mypy.
print() was backported.
Bikeshed.

>>> print("café"[3])�
That's not what I meant. This is what I meant:
>>> f"x = {3}"'x = 3'
It is in a dynamically typed language. Maybe it would even be sensible in some statically typed languages. When you divide numbers it's usually much more important whether the result gets rounded or not than whether the types get preserved. / and // is a much better way to categorize what should be done than float and int.
That kind of feature duplication is bad, especially if the most obvious version is very inefficient. dict_items also has a much better repr.
In a less pleasant way.
"class Foo:" is better than "class Foo(object):". It's not a big deal but it is an improvement. Small improvements add up.

The only problem here was you, son. How do you think people do that in C?
I'm not sure what the point of this thing is since non-trivial programs load their format strings dynamically so they can be translated. It seems like it has very few uses, and would be better written with format() so the code doesn't have to be significantly changed as it evolves. I'd have intentionally left that out of a language as it seems like a novice trap.
Yeah, no. Dynamic typing doesn't matter, if anything that argument gets made about the visibility of type systems. Python isn't a language that hides types, I can specifically cast the inputs to int yet I get a float as it's been special-cased. It's inconsistent with the rest of the language as they didn't special-case the other operators, e.g. 3

youtube.com/watch?v=4eLMrGYf1dw

niggers.

Grats on following the tutorial, literal BRnigger. Now kill yourself.

The Fortran, Ada, Pascal, Algol, Cobol, PL/I, Basic, etc. way (Dijkstra's "convention c)") is the only way that makes sense. Leaving out the upper bound is just as nonsensical as leaving out the lower bound and saying 1 to 5 excludes 1 and really means 2, 3, 4, and 5. If a place is open Monday to Saturday, it is open on Saturday. If it wasn't, they would have said Monday to Friday. When someone says "A to Z" they mean the whole alphabet including Z. That is exactly how these languages treat array indexing, ranges, loops, subtypes, slices, etc. There are also other reasons, like the length and upper bound being the same, and returning 0 when something is not found.

damn.

those are videos my nephew liked.

In these languages, you indeed say "x to y", with syntax. In Python though it's just range(). The inclusive/exclusive conflict is one that tracks a larger conflict between a "programs should be like natural language" and "programs should be like math".

Python is a weird mishmash of things. It has the 'x if y else z' syntax but then also range(). Some things are OO like "".format(), some things are procedural like len(""). It's not as bad as rust when it comes to 'dump every language feature into a pot' design, but it's still a hot mess.

The inconsistency between .format and len is not at all arbitrary. .format is for strings, and only strings, so it can be a method of string objects. But you need to be able to get the length of anything that has a length, no matter what kind of object it is, as long as it's iterable. .format is OOP, len is more in the realm of duck typing.
The ternary if then else is syntax, but range is just a built-in function.

No, it is. len() isn't defined for all types, so why does it accept all types? C++ doesn't do this for the same concept with .size(), it just defines it as part of the types where it would be valid. Python isn't sure if it wants to be procedural or OO and this kind of wonky design is all over the language.

In Python, 10 in range(1,10) is false, but in Pascal and Ada, 10 in 1..10 is true.

Natural language and math are both inclusive. Summation and product are inclusive. Integer intervals are closed in math. I don't think there is any conflict between natural language and math.

but what if im getting drunk with you guys? thats the most fun part of the week

What do you guys think about an EECS degree like that offered at Berkeley? Is it worth it?

Then prepare to keep your virginity forever.
AWALT