Learning to program

[The Duke]

This is somthing I’ve jumped in and out of over the years, I learnt the basics of html and css as an extra credit in college when ding my access course. I really enjoyed it. 6 mints earlier I’d never owned a pc, so it opened my eyes to computers. Though back in early 2000s websites was much simpler.

Since then I’ve babbeled in c+, done an online course, enjoyed it, however my biggest issues with getting into it properly is highlited in this thread. Just decided how to aproch learning coding is a huge minefield. Ask a 100 programmers, and you’ll get 150 different answers of where to start, and what to learn.

You may be better, getting on YouTube, finding tutorials on making apps, or turning sites into an app, following that exact tutorial, of turning their fake Web page into an app (or mobile site). You’ll get a basic idea of what disipins (and more mainly why ) you’ll then need to learn.

It’s easy for people in Thr know to say, you will need html, css, then some one to say also java, the next person to say sql and so on. As when you don’t know about coding, you don’t know why you’ll need this and just get overwhelmed and ultimately abandon the idea, as you will struggle to know where to begin.

So my advice is fund a youtube services thst closely fits what you need. Get a basic lime understanding, then expand on your knowalge of the dispilens you need, why you needed them, and how they mesh.

I’d hazard a quests thst many of the older coders here, started by coping out free game code from computer magazines, then manipulating the code, to see what the effects was. Then as theircinterestd peaked, they they got sucked into the world of programing and there knowalge grew and new disipins was learnt as they knew why they needed them. Today’s youtune tutorial series, is basically the pc magazine game code. A way to wet your whistle.

[Ed P]

As Steve says those who learned all had both different motivations, experience and background. I had a little background through college and the days of ‘steam’ computers (A donated Lyons Corner House mainframe), but computers in those days were far too big and expensive for individuals. I coveted the first single board computers when they started to come on the matket but could not afford them . I finally spent the equivalent of a second-hand car on an Apple IIe, and that was when I really started.

My first foray was actually a somewhat illegal hack.

An Apple game I had purchased stopped working so I delved into the file structure and machine code (Apple in those days fully documented everything), and identified that Apple had used a simple XOR rotating word encryption on the file, once the 6502 machine code was revealed it did nor take too long to identify the file corruption and fix it.I saw nothing illegal in what I had done and even wrote a magazine article (never published for now obvious reasons).

Under today’s draconian Millennium laws  all that would now be completely illegal and I would have lost a great learning experience. However, from there it was a short step to wanting to write my own ‘cargo-cult’ arcade games versions a bit like TL’s foray into BombJack.

I think the keys to learning to program are having an objective that is reasonably achievable, plus laziness. Always pinch and adapt code snippets where possible .Other people invariably write better code than a noob, but a lot can be learned from understanding what they have done.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

https://www.edx.org/course/css-basics

You may like to have a look at some of the courses on edX like the one above. They are free if you dont want a verified certificate.

[The Duke]

Edx is where I done the C+ course about 5 years ago. It was quite good as it was live (weekly release) and a good community popped up, so we could build ideas when stuck.

Though if me, given tippin knows his end goal, I’d first work theitgh a you tube tutorial for converting a website to an app, and then when I know what I needed and why, I’d then go to the likes of edx to expand my knowlaged on each disapline.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

That very much fits in with Ed’s suggested approach of taking a working example of something ( A magazine listing  or a You Tube tutorial) and playing with it to see what happens. I thoroughly recommend it but it helps if you have an idea of what your playing should do before you start ?

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Sorry Duke, I missed your post about messing with existing examples because it was on the previous page. Credit to you too then ?

[Richard]

Ed, you raised some interesting points there. Debugging a failed program to allow it to run once more might with normal mechanical or electrical things be termed maintaining the darned things.

I see that Xiongmai’s piles of crap IDIOTIC* so called IOT stuff gets another pasting for the maker’s careful thought to ignoring security. After careful and deep thought they ignore the whole issue and make their kit work effectively wide open. Since the whole software dung heap is so riddled with problems taking it apart and building something with a modicum of design sanity should be seen as providing the integrity that the OEM maker lacks.

Note, you will not see Xiongmai listed as the name on the goods, their rubbish is sold under many other foolish market names. The Register has a fuller account of their mess.

There should be no way that essentially dishonest producers should gain the shield of legal protection that the various millennium and before laws purport to grant to the crap pushers.

Anyone up for that challenge I wonder?

*Internet Direct Integration of Threats Including Chaos see the Mirai problems

[Ed P]

The US Digital Millennium Act (DMA), actually makes it illegal to remove encryption on software in order to see what makes it tick/work. I guess it still allows you to perform uninformed modifications on an item that you own.

I am uncertain what parts of this idiocy have been adopted into UK law, but I’ll confess I just ignore such carp as being irrational, and irrelevant as I am not actually trying to break copyrights.

In theory none of these restrictions apply to the IoT as all (?) are based on open software, and manufacturers would face some expensive legal issues if they tried to use the DMA. (almost certainly the Free Software Foundation would come into such a court case as an interested party).

 

[edit] for balance it is not just Xiongmai that have insecure systems, but also ‘reputable’  companies such as Samsung ElReg article

[Ed P]

The ElReg link was missing:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/08/smart_camera_which_wtf/

[Richard]

Ed P wrote:

The US Digital Millennium Act (DMA), actually makes it illegal to remove encryption on software in order to see what makes it tick/work. I guess it still allows you to perform uninformed modifications on an item that you own. I am uncertain what parts of this idiocy have been adopted into UK law, but I’ll confess I just ignore such carp as being irrational, and irrelevant as I am not actually trying to break copyrights. In theory none of these restrictions apply to the IoT as all (?) are based on open software, and manufacturers would face some expensive legal issues if they tried to use the DMA. (almost certainly the Free Software Foundation would come into such a court case as an interested party). [edit] for balance it is not just Xiongmai that have insecure systems, but also ‘reputable’ companies such as Samsung ElReg article

Since the lunacy in question appears to have nothing in the way of protective actions including some files said to be in plain text, it is hardly a challenge requiring the removal of any sort of protections. The whole sorry mess of IDIOTIC (Internet Direct Integration of Threats Including Chaos) is so crammed full of dross dressed up as premium, usable and safety enhancing product one can only wonder art the stupidity of the money grubbers (OEMs) and the money wasters (their customers with no regard for their or their familey’s safety, health or welfare.

Your point about the basic software foundation being open source is well taken so really the bets as to why not are really replaced by go ahead, see if you can add some useful security to the rubbish software. Quite how good or bad the hardware might be could be explored at the same time by those with the time and interest. I am not sure about selling the results of such work, but frankly I cannot see a serious reason not to allow such activity, it is NOT like hacking games or hacked encoded bypass cards for which there are legal blocks.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Atari used to put things like “No disassembly of the code provided in this cartridge is permitted” in the back of their user manuals. I wonder if they could have made that stick ?

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Just a quick correction for those who like correctness ?

Atari BASIC was written by Shepardson Microsystems who also did the DOS for the Apple II disc system. Later they sold the rights to Optimised Systems Software.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepardson_Microsystems

 

[Tippon]

Thanks for the replies guys 🙂 Sorry I haven’t been here as much as I’d like, it’s just been one of those weeks.

Steve: Thanks for the idea. I might follow a video tutorial just to see if I understand any of it. The theory seems quite straightforward, but actually figuring it all out probably isn’t. I always forget about YouTube too. I’m so used to using it as basically a toy that I forget there’s useful stuff there too.

WoF: Thanks for the link. edX looks great 🙂

[Ed P]

Code Google has a mixed bag of introductory through to highly cutting edge code.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

I am miffed because edX has marked me wrong on one of its questions. See what you think.

1. Pass a variable to a function by value and change its value within the function.

Q. What is the value of the variable after the call to the function returns ?

A. The same as it was before the call because you only passed its value.

2. Pass a variable to a function by reference (&variable) and change its value within the function.

Q. What is the value of the variable after the call to the function.

Now here is the problem. I read this question twice and this one does NOT say the value after the function returns like the first one did so I put the value is not yet changed. They marked me wrong because they MENT the value after the function returned which will be the new value because I passed it by reference.

I think I was robbed ?

 

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Any comments ?

[The Duke]

I’m sure they would like your feed back regarding the language conduction of the question.

If you’re paying and going for a accreditation, then you may be right to ‘feel robbed’, and want an answer from them. However if youre doing it for the learning experiance, then I’d just file your feedback and move one.

[Ed P]

No: Check out ‘pass-by-value’ and ‘pass-by-reference’ again.

The first just assigns a value to something passed to a function, and never passes it back to the calling program. The second actually passes a dereferenced pointer to the variable in the calling program. When that ‘pointer’ hits the function any changes made in the function are in effect made to the variable in the calling program. Nothing in fact is ‘passed back’!

The referenced variable could perhaps be considered a global value with scope limited to just the calling program and the function.

[edit] It is really worthwhile getting the concepts of pointers, pointers to pointers etc and their dereferenced values as these are very important and powerful concepts in C/C++ and most other languages that allow direct memory manipulation. In fact they are so powerful that C#  makes you jump through hoops to use what it terms unsafe code.

[Ed P]

It perhaps would have been better if I had also said that the actual thing passed in call by reference is the ‘fixed’ variable address (&) and the current dereferenced value for the variable sitting at that address. Although nothing you do alters the address inside the function any changes made to the variable are applied to the value at that address.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

I shortened the example for Er shortness Ed so here is the code they asked us to construct in a “lab” before the questions :

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

void CallByValue(int Avariable)

{

Avariable = 50;

}

void CallByRef(int & Avariable)

{

Avariable = 50;

}

int main()

{

int Avariable = 5;

cout << Avariable << endl;

CallByValue(Avariable);

cout << Avariable << endl;

CallByRef(Avariable);

cout << Avariable << endl;

}

The output is 5, 5, 50.

On your other point if I wanted a pointer memory address I would write:

*pointer=&Avariable

And if I wanted the value in the address I would dereference the variable with:

Value=*pointer

 

[Author]

Posts