... hab' ich mitzuteilen - L's blog

... with a touch of python - Didaktik der Informatik, Informatische Bildung, ...
Fri, 02 Nov 2007
Raccoon 0.11.0 Released [ 16:00 Uhr ] [ 162 Worte ]

Raccoon 0.11.0 veröffentlicht

Seit gestern steht eine neue Version des Apache Webservers für Symbian S60 Mobiltelefone bereit.

Raccoon ist die Entwicklerfassung (Nokia nennt sie liebevoll: blanke-Knochen-Version) des MobileWebServers (Beta Version 11 des MWS).

Gestern ist passend(?) ein Buch zum MobileWebServer (MWS) erschienen. Weiteres Material (diverse Dokumente inkl. MWS)

Die Ankündigung von Raccon enthält einen Verweis auf Sourceforge. Dort können nicht nur die entsprechende .sis-Datei, sondern auch die kompletten Quellen und ein Einschubmodul heruntergeladen werden.

Es ist offenbar möglich, beide Webserver zu installieren, dann muss allerdings zunächst der MWS installiert werden.

Vorsicht: Vor der Installation des MWS muss Python deinstalliert werden.

Wie vorher, ist der Server standardmäßig mit einer Python-Schnittstelle versehen.

Bisher habe ich noch nicht getestet, ich denke aber, dass dieser Server von uns in dem Projekt Mobil Programmieren genutzt werden kann.

Ped 2.15_final [ 15:50 Uhr ] [ 108 Worte ]

Ped 2.15_final - neue Fassung der beliebten Entwicklungsumgebung für Mobile Programming auf S60 3rd Edition

Ped 2.15_final veröffentlicht ;-)

Um die neue stabile Version Ped 2.15 zu nutzen, muss die entsprechende .sis-Datei von Ped 2.15_final heruntergeladen werden. Sie funktioniert nur, wenn Python auf dem Mobiltelefon installiert ist.

Auf der Webseite mit Hinweisen finden sich in der ersten Reihe Bildschirmfotos, die ich gemacht habe. Wenn Sie alle sehen wollen, finden Sie diese unter: Bilder zu Ped 2 auf dem Mobiltelefon

Ped 2.15_final enthält auch einen Verweis auf den Quellcode.

Thu, 01 Nov 2007
If Fase Ausgabe 22 [ 21:52 Uhr ] [ 63 Worte ]

Die aktuelle Ausgabe der If Fase, Ausgabe 22, ist im Web veröffentlicht worden. Viel Spaß beim Lesen!
2007-11-01
[ atom Feed ] http://humbert.in.hagen.de/iffase/iffase.atom [ Verweis - Nachrichtenkanal ]

[ xhtml ] http://humbert.in.hagen.de/iffase/ [ Verweis - Eintrag ]

Tue, 30 Oct 2007
OOP, Nouns, Verbs And Metaphors [ 22:32 Uhr ] [ 518 Worte ]

I don't agree - imho a good design is art - so I indeed confirm with Don Knuth: The art of programming ...

Using nouns and verbs is a good way of introducing Object Oriented Programming (OOP). I think it is effective in breaking the mindset of procedural programming and changing the direction of thinking. It is also very effective in explaining some key concepts. However, it is effective only as a way of thinking. There can be problems when we start using it as a design philosophy.

As Buko Obele says, programming is not art. He goes on to show where nouns and verbs can create problems:

The word ‘person’ in a sentence isn’t dependent upon any notion of a particular verb, it always exists prior and apart from the sentence. In practice we would never say that a person who can’t, for example, ‘run’ isn’t a person because ‘person’ is its own word. But in object oriented design precisely the opposite is true: the person type (concept) is defined by its ability to ‘run’ and objects that don’t know to run are strictly not persons. In object oriented design concepts do not exist separately and apart from their methods at all — instead, the whole point is that they are strictly constituted by their methods. So all the talk of subjects and verbs may be a decent way to explain object oriented design but it’s self-evidently the wrong approach to doing object oriented design.

I remember Joshua Porter’s quote, which I think is valid about all designs:

Art is about personal expression, Design is about use.

But a design is useful only within its scope, anywhere outside it goes completely invalid.

The biggest problem is in using the nouns and verbs to map the two languages, that is, the natural language and the programming language. As Buko says, the natural language is full of metaphors and ambiguity and many times without any defined scope, which is of little help in designing software systems. There are lesser bindings, lesser dependencies and capabilities can vary a lot. However, we start tightening bolts when we start to define the scope for our software system. That is the time when we actually redefine, or you can say choose a subset of, the nouns and verbs for our convenience and understanding. We create associations, define capabilities, lifecycles and identify dependencies.

In my opinion nouns and verbs are very effective in identifying in what to do, who does it and catching improper assignment of responsibilities early in the design, but only if the scope is defined. Otherwise it ends up cycles of discussions and redesigns and then frustrations.


[ Datum/Zeit: ] Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:25:22 +0000

[ Quelle: ]
Abhijit Nadgouda
[ rss10 Feed ] http://feeds.feedburner.com/ifacethoughts/entries [ Verweis - Eintrag ]

[ xhtml ] http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Ifacethoughts/entries/~3/177158404/ [ Verweis - Eintrag ]

Sun, 28 Oct 2007
Difference Between Knowing Programming and Knowing Syntax [ 23:12 Uhr ] [ 334 Worte ]

Ohne Syntax keine Literalität - ohne Konzepte keine Lösungen. Allerdings bringt allein syntaktisches Wissen, also nur Literalität keine eigenständigen Lösungen hervor, dazu bedarf es der Kenntnis grundlegender Konzepte.

I keep advocating that one must understand the programming concepts while learning a programming language, and not just be keen about the syntax. And it is not very convincing, especially because there are not visible benefits. Most of the times only the short term benefits are visible, the long term ones are either too far away or we do not have the vision at all. So, here is one of the analogies I try to provide for making it more comprehensible. Difference between knowing programming and knowing syntax is the same as between being educated and being literate. You can very well read and write the text with the language you learnt by being just literate. But you need to be educated to inform yourselves with it and apply it to make a difference in your life. Learning only the syntax is like trying to be just literate. I find a lot of novices in a position where they find it hard to understand design, but once a pseudo algorithm is given, they can translate it into a programming language. When you are just literate, you can only write what others dictate. Of course you cannot code without knowing the syntax, but what guides your code is not the language syntax but the programming concepts and the language philosophy. Even if it is more difficult, and you cannot see the immediate benefits, it is better to educate yourself than just being literate.

[ Datum/Zeit: ] Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:21:46 +0000

[ Quelle: ]
Abhijit Nadgouda
[ rss10 Feed ] http://feeds.feedburner.com/ifacethoughts/entries [ Verweis - Nachrichtenkanal ]

[ xhtml ] http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Ifacethoughts/entries/~3/176185399/ [ Verweis - Eintrag ]

Fri, 26 Oct 2007
Thu, 25 Oct 2007
Wed, 24 Oct 2007
Update from the Hopper Conference [ 22:29 Uhr ] [ 493 Worte ]

Da grüß' ich mal als brave man zurück ;-)

I have just attended my first Grace Hopper conference organized by the Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology. The conference sold out with over 1400 people attending. There were a few brave men at the conference but the vast majority of the attendees were women (they even changed some of the men's bathrooms into women's bathrooms). It was amazing and exciting to see so many technical women in a variety of shapes, colors, ages, and backgrounds. I was impressed with the energy, enthusiasm, and depth of knowledge.

The keynote speaker was Donna Dubinsky who is the founder of a new company Numenta that is trying to design a computer system that reasons using a model based on the neocortex of the brain. She was also president and CEO of Palm and had also co-founded Handspring.

Jeannette M. Wing from Carnegie Mellon University gave a very interesting speech about some of the great open questions in computer science such as, 'What is computable?' and 'What is intelligence?' I was standing behind Turing Award winner Fran Allen in line for drinks and got to ask her, 'what attracted her to her career in computer science at IBM'. She said that she had big student loans and needed the money!

One of the interesting comments I heard was from a student who said that she was surprised at the number of older women at the conference. Many of the students didn't know who Grace Hopper or Anita Borg were. I had an interesting talk with Kathryn Kleiman about a documentary that she is working on about the female programmers of the ENIAC and how they have never really gotten credit for their work. You can learn more about the female programmers of the ENIAC at www.eniacprogrammers.org.

There is a documentary fundraiser on Thursday, November 8th 2007 from 6pm ? 9pm, at the Google Headquarters in Mountain View, California. Tickets are $100.00 each and you can register at www.google.com/events/eniac.

Everyone has heard of Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs but very few people know about the important contributions of women in computer science. We need to do a better job of recognizing the contributions of women in computing and in educating both men and women about the role women have played in computing!

For more information on Grace Hopper see http://gracehopper.org/2007/about/grace-hopper/.
For more information on Anita Borg see http://anitaborg.org/about/history/anita-borg/.
For more information on the ENIAC programmers see http:// www.eniacprogrammers.org.

Barb Eriscon
CSTA Certification Chair


[ Datum/Zeit: ] Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:30:50 -0500
[ rss10 Feed ] http://blog.acm.org/csta/index.xml [ Verweis - Nachrichtenkanal ]

[ xhtml ] http://blog.acm.org/archives/csta/2007/10/update_from_the.html [ Verweis - Eintrag ]

<<  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234  >>


Inhalte unterliegen dem Copyright von L. Humbert.
Creative Commons License
Die Inhalte stehen unter einer Creative Commons License.