<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_15_0015233</id>
	<title>Good Language Choice For School Programming Test?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268658060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The <a href="http://orac.amt.edu.au/aio/">Australian Informatics Olympiad programming test</a> is being run in a couple of months. I'm an experienced programmer and I'm thinking of volunteering to tutor interested kids at my children's school to get them ready. There will be children of all levels in the group, from those that can't write 'hello world' in any language, to somewhat experienced programmers.  For those starting from scratch, I'm wondering what language to teach them to code in. Accepted languages are C, C++, Pascal, Java, PHP, Python and Visual Basic. I'm leaning towards Python, because it is a powerful language with a simple syntax. However, the test has a run-time CPU seconds limit, so using an interpreted language like Python could put the students at a disadvantage compared to using C. Is it better to teach them something in 2 months that they're likely to be able to code in but possibly run foul of the CPU time limit, or struggle to teach them to code in a more complicated syntax like C/C++ which would however give them the best chance of having a fast solution?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The Australian Informatics Olympiad programming test is being run in a couple of months .
I 'm an experienced programmer and I 'm thinking of volunteering to tutor interested kids at my children 's school to get them ready .
There will be children of all levels in the group , from those that ca n't write 'hello world ' in any language , to somewhat experienced programmers .
For those starting from scratch , I 'm wondering what language to teach them to code in .
Accepted languages are C , C + + , Pascal , Java , PHP , Python and Visual Basic .
I 'm leaning towards Python , because it is a powerful language with a simple syntax .
However , the test has a run-time CPU seconds limit , so using an interpreted language like Python could put the students at a disadvantage compared to using C. Is it better to teach them something in 2 months that they 're likely to be able to code in but possibly run foul of the CPU time limit , or struggle to teach them to code in a more complicated syntax like C/C + + which would however give them the best chance of having a fast solution ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Informatics Olympiad programming test is being run in a couple of months.
I'm an experienced programmer and I'm thinking of volunteering to tutor interested kids at my children's school to get them ready.
There will be children of all levels in the group, from those that can't write 'hello world' in any language, to somewhat experienced programmers.
For those starting from scratch, I'm wondering what language to teach them to code in.
Accepted languages are C, C++, Pascal, Java, PHP, Python and Visual Basic.
I'm leaning towards Python, because it is a powerful language with a simple syntax.
However, the test has a run-time CPU seconds limit, so using an interpreted language like Python could put the students at a disadvantage compared to using C. Is it better to teach them something in 2 months that they're likely to be able to code in but possibly run foul of the CPU time limit, or struggle to teach them to code in a more complicated syntax like C/C++ which would however give them the best chance of having a fast solution?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478106</id>
	<title>Re:Language shouldn't push you past the limit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268587020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having competed in them this year, I can most definitely say that it is for weeding out bad algorithms.  Most all of the problems were set up in such a way that you could brute force the solution, but it wouldn't be pretty in terms of runtime.  However, they also had a "right" way to solve them (a well-known or obscure algorithm for solving that problem), and the trick was recognizing how to map the problem statement onto graph theory, whether or not the greedy solution works, etc.  The differences in runtimes of the right algorithm to naive algorithms would run in the factors of 10^(~10), so the factor of roughly two-ish that language choice will cause is nowhere near enough to put you over.</p><p>That said, my team coded C++, but that was just because we all knew C++ already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having competed in them this year , I can most definitely say that it is for weeding out bad algorithms .
Most all of the problems were set up in such a way that you could brute force the solution , but it would n't be pretty in terms of runtime .
However , they also had a " right " way to solve them ( a well-known or obscure algorithm for solving that problem ) , and the trick was recognizing how to map the problem statement onto graph theory , whether or not the greedy solution works , etc .
The differences in runtimes of the right algorithm to naive algorithms would run in the factors of 10 ^ ( ~ 10 ) , so the factor of roughly two-ish that language choice will cause is nowhere near enough to put you over.That said , my team coded C + + , but that was just because we all knew C + + already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having competed in them this year, I can most definitely say that it is for weeding out bad algorithms.
Most all of the problems were set up in such a way that you could brute force the solution, but it wouldn't be pretty in terms of runtime.
However, they also had a "right" way to solve them (a well-known or obscure algorithm for solving that problem), and the trick was recognizing how to map the problem statement onto graph theory, whether or not the greedy solution works, etc.
The differences in runtimes of the right algorithm to naive algorithms would run in the factors of 10^(~10), so the factor of roughly two-ish that language choice will cause is nowhere near enough to put you over.That said, my team coded C++, but that was just because we all knew C++ already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477170</id>
	<title>Python or Java</title>
	<author>M. Baranczak</author>
	<datestamp>1268578800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume you want something that'll give the kids an advantage in the competition, <i>and</i> be useful if they want to start programming seriously.</p><p>Pascal - it was nice back when Reagan was in the White House and Michael Jackson still had his nose, but it's obsolete.</p><p>PHP is for writing dynamic web pages. It's good at what it does, but it isn't really a general-purpose language.</p><p>C and C++ are faster than interpreted languages. That is, <i>sometimes</i> they're <i>slightly</i> faster. And they're <i>almost always</i> harder to write in.</p><p>VB? Go fuck yourself.</p><p>So that leaves Java and Python.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you want something that 'll give the kids an advantage in the competition , and be useful if they want to start programming seriously.Pascal - it was nice back when Reagan was in the White House and Michael Jackson still had his nose , but it 's obsolete.PHP is for writing dynamic web pages .
It 's good at what it does , but it is n't really a general-purpose language.C and C + + are faster than interpreted languages .
That is , sometimes they 're slightly faster .
And they 're almost always harder to write in.VB ?
Go fuck yourself.So that leaves Java and Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you want something that'll give the kids an advantage in the competition, and be useful if they want to start programming seriously.Pascal - it was nice back when Reagan was in the White House and Michael Jackson still had his nose, but it's obsolete.PHP is for writing dynamic web pages.
It's good at what it does, but it isn't really a general-purpose language.C and C++ are faster than interpreted languages.
That is, sometimes they're slightly faster.
And they're almost always harder to write in.VB?
Go fuck yourself.So that leaves Java and Python.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476892</id>
	<title>Programming time is more important than CPU time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268576880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I participated in an ACM programming contest once, and you're not looking at the time issue correctly. I remember one problem that involved complicated time calculation that was impossible with writing in C/C++ from scratch on short notice, but it's easy with the Gregorian calendar class in Java. Good programmers can handle any mainstream language syntax, but the capability of the language and its libraries are much more important when programming time is even more important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I participated in an ACM programming contest once , and you 're not looking at the time issue correctly .
I remember one problem that involved complicated time calculation that was impossible with writing in C/C + + from scratch on short notice , but it 's easy with the Gregorian calendar class in Java .
Good programmers can handle any mainstream language syntax , but the capability of the language and its libraries are much more important when programming time is even more important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I participated in an ACM programming contest once, and you're not looking at the time issue correctly.
I remember one problem that involved complicated time calculation that was impossible with writing in C/C++ from scratch on short notice, but it's easy with the Gregorian calendar class in Java.
Good programmers can handle any mainstream language syntax, but the capability of the language and its libraries are much more important when programming time is even more important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480372</id>
	<title>Re:The syntax viewpoint is an oversimplification.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268657820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A Python program with good algorithms will beat a C++ program which uses poor algorithms</i></p><p>But:</p><p>A C++ program which uses poor algorithms will beat a Python program which uses the same poor algorithms<br>A C++ program which uses great algorithms will beat a Python program which uses the same great algorithms<br>A C++ program which uses great algorithms will crap all over a Python program that uses poor algorithms</p><p>So in only 1 case out of 4 does Python in fact beat C++.</p><p>Python wins only if the time to implement the great algorithm in Python is significantly less than in C++.  Which it almost certainly is, but wall-time-limited coding competitions really exaggerate this aspect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Python program with good algorithms will beat a C + + program which uses poor algorithmsBut : A C + + program which uses poor algorithms will beat a Python program which uses the same poor algorithmsA C + + program which uses great algorithms will beat a Python program which uses the same great algorithmsA C + + program which uses great algorithms will crap all over a Python program that uses poor algorithmsSo in only 1 case out of 4 does Python in fact beat C + + .Python wins only if the time to implement the great algorithm in Python is significantly less than in C + + .
Which it almost certainly is , but wall-time-limited coding competitions really exaggerate this aspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Python program with good algorithms will beat a C++ program which uses poor algorithmsBut:A C++ program which uses poor algorithms will beat a Python program which uses the same poor algorithmsA C++ program which uses great algorithms will beat a Python program which uses the same great algorithmsA C++ program which uses great algorithms will crap all over a Python program that uses poor algorithmsSo in only 1 case out of 4 does Python in fact beat C++.Python wins only if the time to implement the great algorithm in Python is significantly less than in C++.
Which it almost certainly is, but wall-time-limited coding competitions really exaggerate this aspect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478172</id>
	<title>Perl!</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1268587980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everybody should start learn from Perl. Only potentially real programmers can withstand such brain abuse...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody should start learn from Perl .
Only potentially real programmers can withstand such brain abuse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody should start learn from Perl.
Only potentially real programmers can withstand such brain abuse...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477102</id>
	<title>Looking Beyond AOI</title>
	<author>carlzum</author>
	<datestamp>1268578320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FAQ says the International competition offers fewer options, "Note that at the IOI only C, C++ and Pascal are permitted." If you're only considering the AOI, Python seems likes the most efficient, portable approach.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FAQ says the International competition offers fewer options , " Note that at the IOI only C , C + + and Pascal are permitted .
" If you 're only considering the AOI , Python seems likes the most efficient , portable approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FAQ says the International competition offers fewer options, "Note that at the IOI only C, C++ and Pascal are permitted.
" If you're only considering the AOI, Python seems likes the most efficient, portable approach.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31491196</id>
	<title>Teaching</title>
	<author>iwebbs</author>
	<datestamp>1268667180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Teaching programming is good. It has lots of up scope. Recently I found a training center in Toronto which teaches software programming starting at the age 7. It is really cool. Kids at the young age itself well trained to do stuff of their  own. The way I foresee is , programming will become a regular job for many people life just as watching TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Teaching programming is good .
It has lots of up scope .
Recently I found a training center in Toronto which teaches software programming starting at the age 7 .
It is really cool .
Kids at the young age itself well trained to do stuff of their own .
The way I foresee is , programming will become a regular job for many people life just as watching TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teaching programming is good.
It has lots of up scope.
Recently I found a training center in Toronto which teaches software programming starting at the age 7.
It is really cool.
Kids at the young age itself well trained to do stuff of their  own.
The way I foresee is , programming will become a regular job for many people life just as watching TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477732</id>
	<title>Re:Many good choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go for <a href="http://www.netvor.sk/~umage/docs/C++\%20Templates\%20are\%20Turing\%20Complete.pdf" title="netvor.sk" rel="nofollow">C++ Templates</a> [netvor.sk] instead. It's even an allowed language for the contest!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go for C + + Templates [ netvor.sk ] instead .
It 's even an allowed language for the contest !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go for C++ Templates [netvor.sk] instead.
It's even an allowed language for the contest!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478240</id>
	<title>How about a pencil and paper and some 3x5 cards</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1268588760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The elements of good foundation in programming do not require a computer.</p><p>It requires that someone understand that programming is nothing more then looping and branching.</p><p>Teach them to wite their 1st program on 3x5 cards and stay away from the any language that has a runtime that prvides more then the most basics functionality.</p><p>Even if they end up using a garbage collected language they need to understand memory allocation and manipulation.</p><p>3x5 cards can emulate memory perfectly and can teach them the fundamentals of a stack ( no pun intended ).</p><p>.
</p><p>One of the biggest problems I see today are "programmers" who do not have a clue as to hat the machine is doing, all they know is you go out and google for a library that will to "stuff" for them without ever knowing what the stuff IS or how it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The elements of good foundation in programming do not require a computer.It requires that someone understand that programming is nothing more then looping and branching.Teach them to wite their 1st program on 3x5 cards and stay away from the any language that has a runtime that prvides more then the most basics functionality.Even if they end up using a garbage collected language they need to understand memory allocation and manipulation.3x5 cards can emulate memory perfectly and can teach them the fundamentals of a stack ( no pun intended ) . . One of the biggest problems I see today are " programmers " who do not have a clue as to hat the machine is doing , all they know is you go out and google for a library that will to " stuff " for them without ever knowing what the stuff IS or how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The elements of good foundation in programming do not require a computer.It requires that someone understand that programming is nothing more then looping and branching.Teach them to wite their 1st program on 3x5 cards and stay away from the any language that has a runtime that prvides more then the most basics functionality.Even if they end up using a garbage collected language they need to understand memory allocation and manipulation.3x5 cards can emulate memory perfectly and can teach them the fundamentals of a stack ( no pun intended )..
One of the biggest problems I see today are "programmers" who do not have a clue as to hat the machine is doing, all they know is you go out and google for a library that will to "stuff" for them without ever knowing what the stuff IS or how it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479086</id>
	<title>Re:Perl !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perl is very simple to learn (check out "Robert's Perl Tutorial").</p></div><p>"Easy to learn, hard to master." is a compliment for games, but not for programming languages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl is very simple to learn ( check out " Robert 's Perl Tutorial " ) .
" Easy to learn , hard to master .
" is a compliment for games , but not for programming languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perl is very simple to learn (check out "Robert's Perl Tutorial").
"Easy to learn, hard to master.
" is a compliment for games, but not for programming languages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479788</id>
	<title>don't use C#</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268652000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please! whatever you do, just don't think of using C#!</p><p>in fact, C# isn't even a programming language anymore since it has context-sensitive statements. so there really even is no reason to think such foolish thoughts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please !
whatever you do , just do n't think of using C # ! in fact , C # is n't even a programming language anymore since it has context-sensitive statements .
so there really even is no reason to think such foolish thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please!
whatever you do, just don't think of using C#!in fact, C# isn't even a programming language anymore since it has context-sensitive statements.
so there really even is no reason to think such foolish thoughts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478116</id>
	<title>Once upon a time</title>
	<author>Calculus2</author>
	<datestamp>1268587140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did pretty well in this particular comp (several years ago) and I used Pascal at the time.<br> <br>

If I knew back then all that I know about programming today, I'd be using C++.<br> <br>

But given that I didn't, I would recommend Python.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did pretty well in this particular comp ( several years ago ) and I used Pascal at the time .
If I knew back then all that I know about programming today , I 'd be using C + + .
But given that I did n't , I would recommend Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did pretty well in this particular comp (several years ago) and I used Pascal at the time.
If I knew back then all that I know about programming today, I'd be using C++.
But given that I didn't, I would recommend Python.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502460</id>
	<title>CPU Limit Ridiculous</title>
	<author>flymolo</author>
	<datestamp>1268739480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CPU Limit is there mainly so they can abort programs rather than wait for potential infinite loops.  Or at least that is what it was for in the programming competitions I participated in.  Get some example problems before making a decision, but I'd definitely lean toward a scripting language, and something with a robust set of shipped libraries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CPU Limit is there mainly so they can abort programs rather than wait for potential infinite loops .
Or at least that is what it was for in the programming competitions I participated in .
Get some example problems before making a decision , but I 'd definitely lean toward a scripting language , and something with a robust set of shipped libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CPU Limit is there mainly so they can abort programs rather than wait for potential infinite loops.
Or at least that is what it was for in the programming competitions I participated in.
Get some example problems before making a decision, but I'd definitely lean toward a scripting language, and something with a robust set of shipped libraries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478856</id>
	<title>Know how these contests work</title>
	<author>GeniusDex</author>
	<datestamp>1268684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have participated in plenty of contests and know enough about the rules to say that you don't have to worry about runtime and memory usage differences between programming language. Depending on the language used, a solution can take longer or use more memory so that the programming language is pretty much moot and the algorithm is the important bit.</p><p>Usually, the runtimes are used to filter algorithms to ones that use the correct runtime. If a problem is about sorting, they will want a O(n log n) algorithm. Nearly any O(n log n) algorithm will work and anything higher (usually O(n^2)) will fail.</p><p>Now that we've leveled the playing field we can get to the language features. My language of choice for these contests is C++ for two reasons. The first one is personal: i know C/C++ pretty well. The second one is a main advantage: the C++ STL provides a larger number of containers and standard algorithms with runtime guarantees which greatly speed up writing code if you know how to use them. Many of the newer languages do provide these kinds of libraries, but in my limited experience with the other languages i have been unable to like them as much as the STL for this purpose. The fact that you have runtime guarantees in the STL makes it particularly suited for this contests, where runtime is key.</p><p>In the end it all depends on what you want to teach tho. I would dare to dive into C++ with new students, as long as they are eager to learn and show a reasonable level of thinking like a programmer. If you know a lot more about python and can explain and use the algorithmic basics of runtime and memory usage well in python, go ahead and use python. Any language which allows you to strictly adhere to runtime instructions will work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have participated in plenty of contests and know enough about the rules to say that you do n't have to worry about runtime and memory usage differences between programming language .
Depending on the language used , a solution can take longer or use more memory so that the programming language is pretty much moot and the algorithm is the important bit.Usually , the runtimes are used to filter algorithms to ones that use the correct runtime .
If a problem is about sorting , they will want a O ( n log n ) algorithm .
Nearly any O ( n log n ) algorithm will work and anything higher ( usually O ( n ^ 2 ) ) will fail.Now that we 've leveled the playing field we can get to the language features .
My language of choice for these contests is C + + for two reasons .
The first one is personal : i know C/C + + pretty well .
The second one is a main advantage : the C + + STL provides a larger number of containers and standard algorithms with runtime guarantees which greatly speed up writing code if you know how to use them .
Many of the newer languages do provide these kinds of libraries , but in my limited experience with the other languages i have been unable to like them as much as the STL for this purpose .
The fact that you have runtime guarantees in the STL makes it particularly suited for this contests , where runtime is key.In the end it all depends on what you want to teach tho .
I would dare to dive into C + + with new students , as long as they are eager to learn and show a reasonable level of thinking like a programmer .
If you know a lot more about python and can explain and use the algorithmic basics of runtime and memory usage well in python , go ahead and use python .
Any language which allows you to strictly adhere to runtime instructions will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have participated in plenty of contests and know enough about the rules to say that you don't have to worry about runtime and memory usage differences between programming language.
Depending on the language used, a solution can take longer or use more memory so that the programming language is pretty much moot and the algorithm is the important bit.Usually, the runtimes are used to filter algorithms to ones that use the correct runtime.
If a problem is about sorting, they will want a O(n log n) algorithm.
Nearly any O(n log n) algorithm will work and anything higher (usually O(n^2)) will fail.Now that we've leveled the playing field we can get to the language features.
My language of choice for these contests is C++ for two reasons.
The first one is personal: i know C/C++ pretty well.
The second one is a main advantage: the C++ STL provides a larger number of containers and standard algorithms with runtime guarantees which greatly speed up writing code if you know how to use them.
Many of the newer languages do provide these kinds of libraries, but in my limited experience with the other languages i have been unable to like them as much as the STL for this purpose.
The fact that you have runtime guarantees in the STL makes it particularly suited for this contests, where runtime is key.In the end it all depends on what you want to teach tho.
I would dare to dive into C++ with new students, as long as they are eager to learn and show a reasonable level of thinking like a programmer.
If you know a lot more about python and can explain and use the algorithmic basics of runtime and memory usage well in python, go ahead and use python.
Any language which allows you to strictly adhere to runtime instructions will work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678</id>
	<title>The syntax viewpoint is an oversimplification.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between C++ and Python isn't simply that C++ has a more complicated syntax.</p><p>In C++, the kids will have to wrestle with the static type system and the lack of automated memory management. (Problems that can be partially overcome with a lot of "greenspunning" that requires significant C++ experience).</p><p>The number one factor in performance is the choice of algorithms. A Python program with good algorithms will beat a C++ program which uses poor algorithms, or which does stupid things like copy aggregate objects in order to avoid memory management difficulties.</p><p>It's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like Python and excludes mature dynamic languages that have good compilers. Bad education!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between C + + and Python is n't simply that C + + has a more complicated syntax.In C + + , the kids will have to wrestle with the static type system and the lack of automated memory management .
( Problems that can be partially overcome with a lot of " greenspunning " that requires significant C + + experience ) .The number one factor in performance is the choice of algorithms .
A Python program with good algorithms will beat a C + + program which uses poor algorithms , or which does stupid things like copy aggregate objects in order to avoid memory management difficulties.It 's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like Python and excludes mature dynamic languages that have good compilers .
Bad education !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between C++ and Python isn't simply that C++ has a more complicated syntax.In C++, the kids will have to wrestle with the static type system and the lack of automated memory management.
(Problems that can be partially overcome with a lot of "greenspunning" that requires significant C++ experience).The number one factor in performance is the choice of algorithms.
A Python program with good algorithms will beat a C++ program which uses poor algorithms, or which does stupid things like copy aggregate objects in order to avoid memory management difficulties.It's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like Python and excludes mature dynamic languages that have good compilers.
Bad education!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481542</id>
	<title>Java is the best</title>
	<author>melaraj</author>
	<datestamp>1268666160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A well designed java app would probably run very close to C++.  Depending on what they do, using easy caching, streaming and string manipulation techniques by using StringBuffer when possible can make all of the difference in the speed.  I would pick java because is a powerful language with very strong rules and without the pitfalls of writing code in C/C++.  I have 20 years experience working with C/C++, Java, Pascal.  I only ever venture in C/C++ just to write low level hardware dependent stuff.  VB is a joke.  My choice would be Java.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A well designed java app would probably run very close to C + + .
Depending on what they do , using easy caching , streaming and string manipulation techniques by using StringBuffer when possible can make all of the difference in the speed .
I would pick java because is a powerful language with very strong rules and without the pitfalls of writing code in C/C + + .
I have 20 years experience working with C/C + + , Java , Pascal .
I only ever venture in C/C + + just to write low level hardware dependent stuff .
VB is a joke .
My choice would be Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A well designed java app would probably run very close to C++.
Depending on what they do, using easy caching, streaming and string manipulation techniques by using StringBuffer when possible can make all of the difference in the speed.
I would pick java because is a powerful language with very strong rules and without the pitfalls of writing code in C/C++.
I have 20 years experience working with C/C++, Java, Pascal.
I only ever venture in C/C++ just to write low level hardware dependent stuff.
VB is a joke.
My choice would be Java.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478980</id>
	<title>Read the contest rules</title>
	<author>jibjibjib</author>
	<datestamp>1268686440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you read the contest rules, you'll see that the judges may increase the time limits for interpreted languages at their discretion. It's intended that, as much as possible, no particular language has an advantage over another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the contest rules , you 'll see that the judges may increase the time limits for interpreted languages at their discretion .
It 's intended that , as much as possible , no particular language has an advantage over another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the contest rules, you'll see that the judges may increase the time limits for interpreted languages at their discretion.
It's intended that, as much as possible, no particular language has an advantage over another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480630</id>
	<title>For the love of god, don't teack them c++ or VB!!!</title>
	<author>Youngbull</author>
	<datestamp>1268660520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It most probably won't work, because, face it, they are kids, you will spend most of your time trying to get them to understand quirkiness. The thing is that what they won't solve in time, they probably won't solve at all, and unless you are doing difficult stuff or you are squeezing c++ (wich you probably won't get kids to do right), python is comparable to c++ (maybe between 4 and 5 times slower), and when it comes to VB, it will just mess with their minds...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It most probably wo n't work , because , face it , they are kids , you will spend most of your time trying to get them to understand quirkiness .
The thing is that what they wo n't solve in time , they probably wo n't solve at all , and unless you are doing difficult stuff or you are squeezing c + + ( wich you probably wo n't get kids to do right ) , python is comparable to c + + ( maybe between 4 and 5 times slower ) , and when it comes to VB , it will just mess with their minds.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It most probably won't work, because, face it, they are kids, you will spend most of your time trying to get them to understand quirkiness.
The thing is that what they won't solve in time, they probably won't solve at all, and unless you are doing difficult stuff or you are squeezing c++ (wich you probably won't get kids to do right), python is comparable to c++ (maybe between 4 and 5 times slower), and when it comes to VB, it will just mess with their minds...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31492342</id>
	<title>Re:Strange limitation</title>
	<author>Qu4Z</author>
	<datestamp>1268680020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that if you don't specify a CPU time limit, and you get an (apparently) infinitely running process you have no way of determining a winner short of solving the halting problem -- which may be a little too much effort if you're just looking to have a kids' programming competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that if you do n't specify a CPU time limit , and you get an ( apparently ) infinitely running process you have no way of determining a winner short of solving the halting problem -- which may be a little too much effort if you 're just looking to have a kids ' programming competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that if you don't specify a CPU time limit, and you get an (apparently) infinitely running process you have no way of determining a winner short of solving the halting problem -- which may be a little too much effort if you're just looking to have a kids' programming competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478854</id>
	<title>Re:Pascal</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1268684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Its only real drawback is that it's a proprietary language. That won't effect the contest.''</p><p>You mean requiring kids to install a huge blob of closed-source software just so they can participate in the contest isn't a problem? Perhaps you don't have a problem with that, but I do. I don't think it's right to force software on people, much less if there are other languages you could choose that leave the kids free to choose the implementation they want to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Its only real drawback is that it 's a proprietary language .
That wo n't effect the contest .
''You mean requiring kids to install a huge blob of closed-source software just so they can participate in the contest is n't a problem ?
Perhaps you do n't have a problem with that , but I do .
I do n't think it 's right to force software on people , much less if there are other languages you could choose that leave the kids free to choose the implementation they want to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Its only real drawback is that it's a proprietary language.
That won't effect the contest.
''You mean requiring kids to install a huge blob of closed-source software just so they can participate in the contest isn't a problem?
Perhaps you don't have a problem with that, but I do.
I don't think it's right to force software on people, much less if there are other languages you could choose that leave the kids free to choose the implementation they want to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478350</id>
	<title>Re:The syntax viewpoint is an oversimplification.</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1268590260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, in 99.99\% of the problems encountered in these "informatics" competitions, you don't need any memory management. You need to allocate memory (usually declaring a large array or something like that), but you don't need to worry about free() or cleaning up anything.</p><p>The static type system doesn't get in the way either. The input is usually just numbers (frequently integers) and that's what you deal with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , in 99.99 \ % of the problems encountered in these " informatics " competitions , you do n't need any memory management .
You need to allocate memory ( usually declaring a large array or something like that ) , but you do n't need to worry about free ( ) or cleaning up anything.The static type system does n't get in the way either .
The input is usually just numbers ( frequently integers ) and that 's what you deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, in 99.99\% of the problems encountered in these "informatics" competitions, you don't need any memory management.
You need to allocate memory (usually declaring a large array or something like that), but you don't need to worry about free() or cleaning up anything.The static type system doesn't get in the way either.
The input is usually just numbers (frequently integers) and that's what you deal with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31485686</id>
	<title>Python</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1268683320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do like Java a lot but Python will force them to make nice neat code, it's easy to learn, has awesome features / support and it's fast enough.
<br> <br>
Plus you can just have them open it on the command line and type stuff in and get instance feedback from their work. They won't write a huge program this way but at least while starting out at first it doesn't require either compiling things on your own or learning an IDE at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do like Java a lot but Python will force them to make nice neat code , it 's easy to learn , has awesome features / support and it 's fast enough .
Plus you can just have them open it on the command line and type stuff in and get instance feedback from their work .
They wo n't write a huge program this way but at least while starting out at first it does n't require either compiling things on your own or learning an IDE at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do like Java a lot but Python will force them to make nice neat code, it's easy to learn, has awesome features / support and it's fast enough.
Plus you can just have them open it on the command line and type stuff in and get instance feedback from their work.
They won't write a huge program this way but at least while starting out at first it doesn't require either compiling things on your own or learning an IDE at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502928</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>xiong.chiamiov</author>
	<datestamp>1268742120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For Python, can they use: <a href="http://psyco.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">Psyco</a> [sourceforge.net] as a library?  That would help being practically a Just In Time compiler.</p></div><p>Or they could use the recent release of Pypy.  I haven't used it myself, but <a href="http://speed.pypy.org/" title="pypy.org" rel="nofollow">the benchmarks</a> [pypy.org] look appealing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For Python , can they use : Psyco [ sourceforge.net ] as a library ?
That would help being practically a Just In Time compiler.Or they could use the recent release of Pypy .
I have n't used it myself , but the benchmarks [ pypy.org ] look appealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Python, can they use: Psyco [sourceforge.net] as a library?
That would help being practically a Just In Time compiler.Or they could use the recent release of Pypy.
I haven't used it myself, but the benchmarks [pypy.org] look appealing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31486600</id>
	<title>Go for python</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1268686320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go for python, that will prepare them to code in: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace\_(programming\_language)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace\_(programming\_language)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>No seriously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. take this with a grain of salt, because this is written by someone who has so far managed to avoid learning python, but knows the other languages: Python syntax is unique, and it will not prepare you for the goodness of the many curly-braces languages.</p><p>In my initial sifting, I would not rule out php as programming language if the programming exercise benefits from graphics, which most likely it doesn't in such a contest though.</p><p>I think Java will do fine because it has easy looking string operations, and not too many weird standard invocations, like in C "#include &lt;stdio.h&gt;".<br>I would consider C++ first if not for its weirdness of having the same operator code for bit-shifting as for simple input and output.</p><p>In fact, if the problem involves file handling, I think C appears to be more easy to handle this, at least on first sight to the student(which I think is important - don't scare them stiff on first sight of a language). I mean the java way is easy too in practice, but you have to string two objects together to handle file reading or writing in a standard invocation.</p><p>I look forward to many python counter examples to my concerns, as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. seems to champion python.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go for python , that will prepare them to code in : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace \ _ ( programming \ _language ) [ wikipedia.org ] No seriously .. take this with a grain of salt , because this is written by someone who has so far managed to avoid learning python , but knows the other languages : Python syntax is unique , and it will not prepare you for the goodness of the many curly-braces languages.In my initial sifting , I would not rule out php as programming language if the programming exercise benefits from graphics , which most likely it does n't in such a contest though.I think Java will do fine because it has easy looking string operations , and not too many weird standard invocations , like in C " # include " .I would consider C + + first if not for its weirdness of having the same operator code for bit-shifting as for simple input and output.In fact , if the problem involves file handling , I think C appears to be more easy to handle this , at least on first sight to the student ( which I think is important - do n't scare them stiff on first sight of a language ) .
I mean the java way is easy too in practice , but you have to string two objects together to handle file reading or writing in a standard invocation.I look forward to many python counter examples to my concerns , as / .
seems to champion python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go for python, that will prepare them to code in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace\_(programming\_language) [wikipedia.org]No seriously .. take this with a grain of salt, because this is written by someone who has so far managed to avoid learning python, but knows the other languages: Python syntax is unique, and it will not prepare you for the goodness of the many curly-braces languages.In my initial sifting, I would not rule out php as programming language if the programming exercise benefits from graphics, which most likely it doesn't in such a contest though.I think Java will do fine because it has easy looking string operations, and not too many weird standard invocations, like in C "#include ".I would consider C++ first if not for its weirdness of having the same operator code for bit-shifting as for simple input and output.In fact, if the problem involves file handling, I think C appears to be more easy to handle this, at least on first sight to the student(which I think is important - don't scare them stiff on first sight of a language).
I mean the java way is easy too in practice, but you have to string two objects together to handle file reading or writing in a standard invocation.I look forward to many python counter examples to my concerns, as /.
seems to champion python.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477384</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268580360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In college I wasted SO much time debugging C/C++ code memory errors.  Python was such a breath of fresh air.  I could think of something with a mildly complex structure, implement it, and have it work pretty much on the first go.</p><p>I've spent days, DAYS debugging weird stack memory limitations in C++, where it would work right on a small data sample, but completely fail on a slightly larger set.</p><p>I used psyco on my Master's thesis to greatly speed up my python simulation (10-100x with a simple import statement).  Unfortunately it only works on 32-bit ix86.  Supposedly other projects like pypy are supposed to reintroduce that kind of optimization to modern python, but I finished my thesis<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P  It's easy enough to link to C/C++ code for parts that really have to run fast though.</p><p>So yeah, start them off with python.  And maybe teach the advanced students how to link to C/C++ modules for performance-critical functions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In college I wasted SO much time debugging C/C + + code memory errors .
Python was such a breath of fresh air .
I could think of something with a mildly complex structure , implement it , and have it work pretty much on the first go.I 've spent days , DAYS debugging weird stack memory limitations in C + + , where it would work right on a small data sample , but completely fail on a slightly larger set.I used psyco on my Master 's thesis to greatly speed up my python simulation ( 10-100x with a simple import statement ) .
Unfortunately it only works on 32-bit ix86 .
Supposedly other projects like pypy are supposed to reintroduce that kind of optimization to modern python , but I finished my thesis : P It 's easy enough to link to C/C + + code for parts that really have to run fast though.So yeah , start them off with python .
And maybe teach the advanced students how to link to C/C + + modules for performance-critical functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In college I wasted SO much time debugging C/C++ code memory errors.
Python was such a breath of fresh air.
I could think of something with a mildly complex structure, implement it, and have it work pretty much on the first go.I've spent days, DAYS debugging weird stack memory limitations in C++, where it would work right on a small data sample, but completely fail on a slightly larger set.I used psyco on my Master's thesis to greatly speed up my python simulation (10-100x with a simple import statement).
Unfortunately it only works on 32-bit ix86.
Supposedly other projects like pypy are supposed to reintroduce that kind of optimization to modern python, but I finished my thesis :P  It's easy enough to link to C/C++ code for parts that really have to run fast though.So yeah, start them off with python.
And maybe teach the advanced students how to link to C/C++ modules for performance-critical functions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479440</id>
	<title>Wel my school</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Used Pascal, and then I used it in the ACSL contests with no problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Used Pascal , and then I used it in the ACSL contests with no problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Used Pascal, and then I used it in the ACSL contests with no problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478440</id>
	<title>Python or BASIC would be a good match</title>
	<author>ralphbecket</author>
	<datestamp>1268591760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You probably want something small and imperative.  I'd recommend either Python or some not-too-clever dialect of BASIC.  Either will do fine for one-page programs, which sounds like what your students will be writing.</p><p>My experience is that strong static typing is vital for programming in the large, but is a serious impediment to beginners.  The extra protection and performance it offers usually isn't neccessary for one-page programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably want something small and imperative .
I 'd recommend either Python or some not-too-clever dialect of BASIC .
Either will do fine for one-page programs , which sounds like what your students will be writing.My experience is that strong static typing is vital for programming in the large , but is a serious impediment to beginners .
The extra protection and performance it offers usually is n't neccessary for one-page programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably want something small and imperative.
I'd recommend either Python or some not-too-clever dialect of BASIC.
Either will do fine for one-page programs, which sounds like what your students will be writing.My experience is that strong static typing is vital for programming in the large, but is a serious impediment to beginners.
The extra protection and performance it offers usually isn't neccessary for one-page programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477314</id>
	<title>Boy you're going to get lots of replies</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1268579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read over quite a few already and find it funny people are saying things like python are the easiest of the bunch to learn.  Command line easiest?  really?</p><p>As much as I don't like MS, their VB is by far the easiest of the bunch to learn.  And you won't have any speed issues at all to deal with, it executes extremely fast.  It's an event-driven language also which makes it easier to compartmentalize things and avoid confusion for new users.  Debugging in C can be a nightmare.  VB does a great deal to force proper coding, it's hard to write something that compiles that doesn't run anything like it should, and with breakpoints and stepping, a higher level language like vb is very easy to debug.  Strong typing is another plus.</p><p>Beware of people replying back with what's easiest for <i>them</i>.  You're going to get a <b>lot</b> of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read over quite a few already and find it funny people are saying things like python are the easiest of the bunch to learn .
Command line easiest ?
really ? As much as I do n't like MS , their VB is by far the easiest of the bunch to learn .
And you wo n't have any speed issues at all to deal with , it executes extremely fast .
It 's an event-driven language also which makes it easier to compartmentalize things and avoid confusion for new users .
Debugging in C can be a nightmare .
VB does a great deal to force proper coding , it 's hard to write something that compiles that does n't run anything like it should , and with breakpoints and stepping , a higher level language like vb is very easy to debug .
Strong typing is another plus.Beware of people replying back with what 's easiest for them .
You 're going to get a lot of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read over quite a few already and find it funny people are saying things like python are the easiest of the bunch to learn.
Command line easiest?
really?As much as I don't like MS, their VB is by far the easiest of the bunch to learn.
And you won't have any speed issues at all to deal with, it executes extremely fast.
It's an event-driven language also which makes it easier to compartmentalize things and avoid confusion for new users.
Debugging in C can be a nightmare.
VB does a great deal to force proper coding, it's hard to write something that compiles that doesn't run anything like it should, and with breakpoints and stepping, a higher level language like vb is very easy to debug.
Strong typing is another plus.Beware of people replying back with what's easiest for them.
You're going to get a lot of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479138</id>
	<title>Teaching language</title>
	<author>KlausBreuer</author>
	<datestamp>1268645040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, while Python is definitively an interesting language, the original teaching language (created to teach programming, and taught before the first compiler for it existed) is Pascal. The original Pascal is of course somewhat outdated by now, but the useful version was pushed onto the PC by Borland in the form of 'Turbo Pascal' (dirt cheap, graphics capable, screamingly fast - in '86!).<br>The language (later called 'Delphi' under Windoze) managed to stay around for a long time despite Borlands best efforts at lousy support. I still use it quite a bit, especially as the compiler is still extremely fast.</p><p>These days you'd want something like FreePascal using the Lazarus interface (<a href="http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/" title="freepascal.org">http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/</a> [freepascal.org]), which is not only free but runs on Windows, Linux and Mac. A 'Hello World' is done within minutes by an absolute beginner, who can then concentrate on the code itself instead of the interface<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , while Python is definitively an interesting language , the original teaching language ( created to teach programming , and taught before the first compiler for it existed ) is Pascal .
The original Pascal is of course somewhat outdated by now , but the useful version was pushed onto the PC by Borland in the form of 'Turbo Pascal ' ( dirt cheap , graphics capable , screamingly fast - in '86 !
) .The language ( later called 'Delphi ' under Windoze ) managed to stay around for a long time despite Borlands best efforts at lousy support .
I still use it quite a bit , especially as the compiler is still extremely fast.These days you 'd want something like FreePascal using the Lazarus interface ( http : //www.lazarus.freepascal.org/ [ freepascal.org ] ) , which is not only free but runs on Windows , Linux and Mac .
A 'Hello World ' is done within minutes by an absolute beginner , who can then concentrate on the code itself instead of the interface : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, while Python is definitively an interesting language, the original teaching language (created to teach programming, and taught before the first compiler for it existed) is Pascal.
The original Pascal is of course somewhat outdated by now, but the useful version was pushed onto the PC by Borland in the form of 'Turbo Pascal' (dirt cheap, graphics capable, screamingly fast - in '86!
).The language (later called 'Delphi' under Windoze) managed to stay around for a long time despite Borlands best efforts at lousy support.
I still use it quite a bit, especially as the compiler is still extremely fast.These days you'd want something like FreePascal using the Lazarus interface (http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/ [freepascal.org]), which is not only free but runs on Windows, Linux and Mac.
A 'Hello World' is done within minutes by an absolute beginner, who can then concentrate on the code itself instead of the interface :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682</id>
	<title>There's C then there's C written by newbies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268575620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK C could be a computationally fast solution, but I'd go for Python anyway.  Why?  Mainly this: How many new C programmers (i.e. less than 1 or 2 years experience) can write programs without obscure memory leak/access problems?  How much time have slashdotters wasted looking for elusive segfaults in C code?  I know I've wasted hours, days, chasing buffer overruns in school assignments.  Or worse are the ones you don't see; they only trigger on the examiner's machine..</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK C could be a computationally fast solution , but I 'd go for Python anyway .
Why ? Mainly this : How many new C programmers ( i.e .
less than 1 or 2 years experience ) can write programs without obscure memory leak/access problems ?
How much time have slashdotters wasted looking for elusive segfaults in C code ?
I know I 've wasted hours , days , chasing buffer overruns in school assignments .
Or worse are the ones you do n't see ; they only trigger on the examiner 's machine. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK C could be a computationally fast solution, but I'd go for Python anyway.
Why?  Mainly this: How many new C programmers (i.e.
less than 1 or 2 years experience) can write programs without obscure memory leak/access problems?
How much time have slashdotters wasted looking for elusive segfaults in C code?
I know I've wasted hours, days, chasing buffer overruns in school assignments.
Or worse are the ones you don't see; they only trigger on the examiner's machine..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477156</id>
	<title>Langage for Programming Competition by Students</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BASIC... Beginners All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. Anny student can become proficient in BASIC within a couple of weekends while gaining the self-confidence to tackle a variety of programming challenges during the competition. Python has the stupid whitespace as indentation issue. Java is a horrid language for beginners due to its comlexity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BASIC... Beginners All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code .
Anny student can become proficient in BASIC within a couple of weekends while gaining the self-confidence to tackle a variety of programming challenges during the competition .
Python has the stupid whitespace as indentation issue .
Java is a horrid language for beginners due to its comlexity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BASIC... Beginners All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code.
Anny student can become proficient in BASIC within a couple of weekends while gaining the self-confidence to tackle a variety of programming challenges during the competition.
Python has the stupid whitespace as indentation issue.
Java is a horrid language for beginners due to its comlexity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806</id>
	<title>Go With Your Gut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless these kids already have a programming proficiency, go with your gut.</p><p>The exercise is as much about allowing them to test the programming waters as it is about them winning.  If you are starting with a blank slate, that means you need to create an environment that is intriguing.  If YOU think Python is the thing,  you'll be passionate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and that is a lot of what makes a good coach/tutor in an olympiad.</p><p>Further, I think you could do a lot worse than Python.  It is really a great language and is popping up in a lot of disciplines as the scripting tool of choice.  It will perform well and has great characteristics that make it well suited for someone learning the ropes.  Plus, the language is modern enough to be relevant should they desire to pursue IT further.</p><p>I would stay away from C/C++.  In the hands of novices in a timed activity, I would wager it would be more trouble than it's worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless these kids already have a programming proficiency , go with your gut.The exercise is as much about allowing them to test the programming waters as it is about them winning .
If you are starting with a blank slate , that means you need to create an environment that is intriguing .
If YOU think Python is the thing , you 'll be passionate ... and that is a lot of what makes a good coach/tutor in an olympiad.Further , I think you could do a lot worse than Python .
It is really a great language and is popping up in a lot of disciplines as the scripting tool of choice .
It will perform well and has great characteristics that make it well suited for someone learning the ropes .
Plus , the language is modern enough to be relevant should they desire to pursue IT further.I would stay away from C/C + + .
In the hands of novices in a timed activity , I would wager it would be more trouble than it 's worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless these kids already have a programming proficiency, go with your gut.The exercise is as much about allowing them to test the programming waters as it is about them winning.
If you are starting with a blank slate, that means you need to create an environment that is intriguing.
If YOU think Python is the thing,  you'll be passionate ... and that is a lot of what makes a good coach/tutor in an olympiad.Further, I think you could do a lot worse than Python.
It is really a great language and is popping up in a lot of disciplines as the scripting tool of choice.
It will perform well and has great characteristics that make it well suited for someone learning the ropes.
Plus, the language is modern enough to be relevant should they desire to pursue IT further.I would stay away from C/C++.
In the hands of novices in a timed activity, I would wager it would be more trouble than it's worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482170</id>
	<title>First step...</title>
	<author>Mister Gribbley</author>
	<datestamp>1268669100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...implement LISP interpreter in your chosen language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...implement LISP interpreter in your chosen language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...implement LISP interpreter in your chosen language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478236</id>
	<title>I think Java</title>
	<author>LongearedBat</author>
	<datestamp>1268588760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Start off with only writing functions in the main class.  Thus starting them off with procedural programming.<br>
<br>
If they grasp that soon enough, then you might be able to teach OO.  Sure OO can be hard for newbies, but it is possible to teach OO in a very short time.  (I've done it a few times.  But that was with adults with some programming experience.  Adults have better focus than kids.)<br>
<br>
Also, I see Java as a much better/gentler languange for beginners than C.  I don't know Python, so I don't have an opinion on it.<br>
<br>
And if they do want to continue programming after your course, then a free Java IDE is only a download away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start off with only writing functions in the main class .
Thus starting them off with procedural programming .
If they grasp that soon enough , then you might be able to teach OO .
Sure OO can be hard for newbies , but it is possible to teach OO in a very short time .
( I 've done it a few times .
But that was with adults with some programming experience .
Adults have better focus than kids .
) Also , I see Java as a much better/gentler languange for beginners than C. I do n't know Python , so I do n't have an opinion on it .
And if they do want to continue programming after your course , then a free Java IDE is only a download away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start off with only writing functions in the main class.
Thus starting them off with procedural programming.
If they grasp that soon enough, then you might be able to teach OO.
Sure OO can be hard for newbies, but it is possible to teach OO in a very short time.
(I've done it a few times.
But that was with adults with some programming experience.
Adults have better focus than kids.
)

Also, I see Java as a much better/gentler languange for beginners than C.  I don't know Python, so I don't have an opinion on it.
And if they do want to continue programming after your course, then a free Java IDE is only a download away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692</id>
	<title>Strange limitation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268575680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a ridiculous limitation! CPU time is only interesting for hardcore programming these days. If you're writing a cutting edge game or analyzing data from an radio telescope, sure, but if you're teaching kids to program: keep it simple. Teach them how to write their name 1000 times, and if they want to do that faster they'll discover C for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a ridiculous limitation !
CPU time is only interesting for hardcore programming these days .
If you 're writing a cutting edge game or analyzing data from an radio telescope , sure , but if you 're teaching kids to program : keep it simple .
Teach them how to write their name 1000 times , and if they want to do that faster they 'll discover C for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a ridiculous limitation!
CPU time is only interesting for hardcore programming these days.
If you're writing a cutting edge game or analyzing data from an radio telescope, sure, but if you're teaching kids to program: keep it simple.
Teach them how to write their name 1000 times, and if they want to do that faster they'll discover C for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481584</id>
	<title>Re:Python or Java</title>
	<author>lucian1900</author>
	<datestamp>1268666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Java is horrible for beginners and too restrictive for experts. So that leaves Python.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java is horrible for beginners and too restrictive for experts .
So that leaves Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java is horrible for beginners and too restrictive for experts.
So that leaves Python.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481858</id>
	<title>What language?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268667480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like Python and excludes mature dynamic languages that have good compilers.</p></div></blockquote><p>"immature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... like Python" and then "mature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... good compilers"  What languages would you be talking about exactly?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like Python and excludes mature dynamic languages that have good compilers .
" immature ... like Python " and then " mature ... good compilers " What languages would you be talking about exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like Python and excludes mature dynamic languages that have good compilers.
"immature ... like Python" and then "mature ... good compilers"  What languages would you be talking about exactly?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31488080</id>
	<title>Re:Things you might want to consider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having more than 20 years of experience with programming contests (both as a contestant and as an organizer/coach), I fully agree with the above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having more than 20 years of experience with programming contests ( both as a contestant and as an organizer/coach ) , I fully agree with the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having more than 20 years of experience with programming contests (both as a contestant and as an organizer/coach), I fully agree with the above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480510</id>
	<title>Re:Teach them C++</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1268659440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>forget turbo pascal! that's an educational language, which is hardly used in the real world (esp. because of the lack of object orientation)</p></div></blockquote><p>How does it feel living at least 22 years behind the rest of the world? I am asking because Turbo Pascal supports OOP for that long.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>forget turbo pascal !
that 's an educational language , which is hardly used in the real world ( esp .
because of the lack of object orientation ) How does it feel living at least 22 years behind the rest of the world ?
I am asking because Turbo Pascal supports OOP for that long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>forget turbo pascal!
that's an educational language, which is hardly used in the real world (esp.
because of the lack of object orientation)How does it feel living at least 22 years behind the rest of the world?
I am asking because Turbo Pascal supports OOP for that long.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478838</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd go with C/C++.</p><p>In my experience, Python is not the right language for the job. Yes, it's simple, but if the programmer relies on its simplicity they generally don't understand the inner workings to get to the end solution as well as with a more in-depth language like C/C++. I'm an old-schooler, though, and I'd be happy to see ASM on there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd go with C/C + + .In my experience , Python is not the right language for the job .
Yes , it 's simple , but if the programmer relies on its simplicity they generally do n't understand the inner workings to get to the end solution as well as with a more in-depth language like C/C + + .
I 'm an old-schooler , though , and I 'd be happy to see ASM on there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd go with C/C++.In my experience, Python is not the right language for the job.
Yes, it's simple, but if the programmer relies on its simplicity they generally don't understand the inner workings to get to the end solution as well as with a more in-depth language like C/C++.
I'm an old-schooler, though, and I'd be happy to see ASM on there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481936</id>
	<title>Re:Go With Your Gut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268667960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you download the gut compiler from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you download the gut compiler from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you download the gut compiler from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476916</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1268577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, the OP says that Python is an accepted language, so it's only sensible to assume that this isn't a sneaky trap set by the Ruby Mafia intending to disqualify testers for using it.</p><p>The Navy research showed Python is a good language for learning OOP and if programming contests today are anything like what they were when I was in ACSL, boy would having a scripting language be handy.  I wonder how anybody could compete in c (but perhaps that's a built-in test - picking the right language for the job is an important skill).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , the OP says that Python is an accepted language , so it 's only sensible to assume that this is n't a sneaky trap set by the Ruby Mafia intending to disqualify testers for using it.The Navy research showed Python is a good language for learning OOP and if programming contests today are anything like what they were when I was in ACSL , boy would having a scripting language be handy .
I wonder how anybody could compete in c ( but perhaps that 's a built-in test - picking the right language for the job is an important skill ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, the OP says that Python is an accepted language, so it's only sensible to assume that this isn't a sneaky trap set by the Ruby Mafia intending to disqualify testers for using it.The Navy research showed Python is a good language for learning OOP and if programming contests today are anything like what they were when I was in ACSL, boy would having a scripting language be handy.
I wonder how anybody could compete in c (but perhaps that's a built-in test - picking the right language for the job is an important skill).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477680</id>
	<title>Re:Python will give you th least problems</title>
	<author>Undead Waffle</author>
	<datestamp>1268583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>C, C++ and Java are not an option. They all need years to master and have numerous non-obvious pitfalls. Pascal is pretty limitad and definitly a historic design. PHP is obscure in palaces. Visual Basic still is a bad joke, confined to just one platform and wioth numerous design problems.</p><p>On the other hand Python is fine, with the only thing to master the indention. Not on the list, but Ruby would also be nice. And for a minimalistic, yet powerful language, loot at (again not on the list) Lua.</p></div><p>So I've gotten from this post that PHP is fine as long as you're not coding in palaces and Lua contains other programming languages if you loot it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C , C + + and Java are not an option .
They all need years to master and have numerous non-obvious pitfalls .
Pascal is pretty limitad and definitly a historic design .
PHP is obscure in palaces .
Visual Basic still is a bad joke , confined to just one platform and wioth numerous design problems.On the other hand Python is fine , with the only thing to master the indention .
Not on the list , but Ruby would also be nice .
And for a minimalistic , yet powerful language , loot at ( again not on the list ) Lua.So I 've gotten from this post that PHP is fine as long as you 're not coding in palaces and Lua contains other programming languages if you loot it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C, C++ and Java are not an option.
They all need years to master and have numerous non-obvious pitfalls.
Pascal is pretty limitad and definitly a historic design.
PHP is obscure in palaces.
Visual Basic still is a bad joke, confined to just one platform and wioth numerous design problems.On the other hand Python is fine, with the only thing to master the indention.
Not on the list, but Ruby would also be nice.
And for a minimalistic, yet powerful language, loot at (again not on the list) Lua.So I've gotten from this post that PHP is fine as long as you're not coding in palaces and Lua contains other programming languages if you loot it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477256</id>
	<title>Re:Pascal</title>
	<author>slashqwerty</author>
	<datestamp>1268579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>C is terrible to teach, they'll have to deal with pointers all the time. Reading something from input? Pointers. Passing by reference? Pointers. Strings? Pointers. Sure you may omit that those are pointers but the segmentation faults will show up for regular reality checks. Same for C++. Python means working with dynamic typing. PHP dynamic and weak typing. Don't get me started on Visual Basic.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>VB.Net* has the advantages you've listed for Pascal and Java, and it solves all the problems you listed for other languages so why not get you started on it?  Its only real drawback is that it's a proprietary language.  That won't effect the contest.

<br> <br>*VB 6 is not supported any more, and VBA and VB Script would be absurd suggestions, so the story submitter is obviously referring to VB.Net.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C is terrible to teach , they 'll have to deal with pointers all the time .
Reading something from input ?
Pointers. Passing by reference ?
Pointers. Strings ?
Pointers. Sure you may omit that those are pointers but the segmentation faults will show up for regular reality checks .
Same for C + + .
Python means working with dynamic typing .
PHP dynamic and weak typing .
Do n't get me started on Visual Basic .
VB.Net * has the advantages you 've listed for Pascal and Java , and it solves all the problems you listed for other languages so why not get you started on it ?
Its only real drawback is that it 's a proprietary language .
That wo n't effect the contest .
* VB 6 is not supported any more , and VBA and VB Script would be absurd suggestions , so the story submitter is obviously referring to VB.Net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C is terrible to teach, they'll have to deal with pointers all the time.
Reading something from input?
Pointers. Passing by reference?
Pointers. Strings?
Pointers. Sure you may omit that those are pointers but the segmentation faults will show up for regular reality checks.
Same for C++.
Python means working with dynamic typing.
PHP dynamic and weak typing.
Don't get me started on Visual Basic.
VB.Net* has the advantages you've listed for Pascal and Java, and it solves all the problems you listed for other languages so why not get you started on it?
Its only real drawback is that it's a proprietary language.
That won't effect the contest.
*VB 6 is not supported any more, and VBA and VB Script would be absurd suggestions, so the story submitter is obviously referring to VB.Net.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478790</id>
	<title>Identical rules and practical use</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1268683740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the same rules apply for all students and if only one programming language is allowed, CPU shouldn't be an issue.<br> <br>

What are the objectives? If it's a thorough introduction of the system that lies at your finger tips, choose C as it is intended to access the hardware as directly as possible (without having to write assembly.) Choose an OO language if you want to teach OO. If you want the kids to actually use the language think of applicability.<br> <br>

For instance, I'm very proficient in Perl but I would never ever teach it as a first language because getting to the basics is too tough. The data types are too general and friendly and don't make you think enough about what you're doing. For an OO language I'd take openness, applicability and development environment into consideration. In short, I'd choose between C and Java.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the same rules apply for all students and if only one programming language is allowed , CPU should n't be an issue .
What are the objectives ?
If it 's a thorough introduction of the system that lies at your finger tips , choose C as it is intended to access the hardware as directly as possible ( without having to write assembly .
) Choose an OO language if you want to teach OO .
If you want the kids to actually use the language think of applicability .
For instance , I 'm very proficient in Perl but I would never ever teach it as a first language because getting to the basics is too tough .
The data types are too general and friendly and do n't make you think enough about what you 're doing .
For an OO language I 'd take openness , applicability and development environment into consideration .
In short , I 'd choose between C and Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the same rules apply for all students and if only one programming language is allowed, CPU shouldn't be an issue.
What are the objectives?
If it's a thorough introduction of the system that lies at your finger tips, choose C as it is intended to access the hardware as directly as possible (without having to write assembly.
) Choose an OO language if you want to teach OO.
If you want the kids to actually use the language think of applicability.
For instance, I'm very proficient in Perl but I would never ever teach it as a first language because getting to the basics is too tough.
The data types are too general and friendly and don't make you think enough about what you're doing.
For an OO language I'd take openness, applicability and development environment into consideration.
In short, I'd choose between C and Java.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476656</id>
	<title>Too easy... can't resist...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268575440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there's a runtime CPU limit, then why is Java even an option?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's a runtime CPU limit , then why is Java even an option ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's a runtime CPU limit, then why is Java even an option?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478346</id>
	<title>python python python blahblahblah</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268590260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonVsPhp" title="python.org">http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonVsPhp</a> [python.org]</p><p>this is from python's own wikia. i dont see why some of you try to lord it over everyone over php. and despise the latter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //wiki.python.org/moin/PythonVsPhp [ python.org ] this is from python 's own wikia .
i dont see why some of you try to lord it over everyone over php .
and despise the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonVsPhp [python.org]this is from python's own wikia.
i dont see why some of you try to lord it over everyone over php.
and despise the latter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476758</id>
	<title>They won't hit the time limit</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1268576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really</p><p>If they hit it, they're doing it wrong or you have the next Rain Man meets Linus Torvalds in your class.</p><p>But if you're worried, I'd say go with Java (what I would say really is go with C# but since you can't do it)</p><p>But python is fine so don't worry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ReallyIf they hit it , they 're doing it wrong or you have the next Rain Man meets Linus Torvalds in your class.But if you 're worried , I 'd say go with Java ( what I would say really is go with C # but since you ca n't do it ) But python is fine so do n't worry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ReallyIf they hit it, they're doing it wrong or you have the next Rain Man meets Linus Torvalds in your class.But if you're worried, I'd say go with Java (what I would say really is go with C# but since you can't do it)But python is fine so don't worry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476666</id>
	<title>Tough Decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268575500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends whether you are trying to teach them how to program, or teach them how to win.  If you teach them something hard to start with, they may become frustrated and quit.  If you teach them something easier, they may not win the competition.  Personally, I'd lean towards teaching them, rather than pushing them into something they aren't ready for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends whether you are trying to teach them how to program , or teach them how to win .
If you teach them something hard to start with , they may become frustrated and quit .
If you teach them something easier , they may not win the competition .
Personally , I 'd lean towards teaching them , rather than pushing them into something they are n't ready for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends whether you are trying to teach them how to program, or teach them how to win.
If you teach them something hard to start with, they may become frustrated and quit.
If you teach them something easier, they may not win the competition.
Personally, I'd lean towards teaching them, rather than pushing them into something they aren't ready for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480146</id>
	<title>Re:Go With Your Gut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268655420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I would stay away from C/C++. In the hands of novices in a timed activity, I would wager it would be more trouble than it's worth.</i></p><p>Novices?  In the hands of <b>experts</b> in a timed activity, it's more trouble than it's worth!</p><p>Using C or C++ <i>at all</i> is usually a case of premature optimization being the root of all evil.  Sadly, the time limit seems to reinforce the idea that premature optimization might be required.</p><p>I think it's a great shame they don't allow you to use any language you like.  I would go for Common LISP myself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would stay away from C/C + + .
In the hands of novices in a timed activity , I would wager it would be more trouble than it 's worth.Novices ?
In the hands of experts in a timed activity , it 's more trouble than it 's worth ! Using C or C + + at all is usually a case of premature optimization being the root of all evil .
Sadly , the time limit seems to reinforce the idea that premature optimization might be required.I think it 's a great shame they do n't allow you to use any language you like .
I would go for Common LISP myself : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would stay away from C/C++.
In the hands of novices in a timed activity, I would wager it would be more trouble than it's worth.Novices?
In the hands of experts in a timed activity, it's more trouble than it's worth!Using C or C++ at all is usually a case of premature optimization being the root of all evil.
Sadly, the time limit seems to reinforce the idea that premature optimization might be required.I think it's a great shame they don't allow you to use any language you like.
I would go for Common LISP myself :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654</id>
	<title>Faster than you think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268575440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Python is faster than you think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Python is faster than you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python is faster than you think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477038</id>
	<title>Probably Java (Bleh)</title>
	<author>pookemon</author>
	<datestamp>1268577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I first read the list I thought "Pascal".  The reasons are that it's a structured language, it is very easy to use and it's able to teach extremely useful concepts like linked lists, recursive algo's etc.<br> <br>
However...  It's nigh on useless these days to have "Pascal" on your CV (I'm sure both the Pascal developers out there will disagree - Yes I'm looking at you Delphi devs...)<br> <br>
I did C, Pascal and COBOL at UNI and since then I have spent some 15 years writing VB (3-&gt;.Net), C, C++, C# etc.  In the last 2 years I have been working mostly with Java.  And I hate it.  It's slow, memory hungry, it's tools are Sh*t (Matisse's creators are on drugs).<br> <br>
That being said, pick up your local paper (or go to Seek - also bleh) and look at the proportion of jobs advertised these days that require Java.  It's quite significant.  That's the sort of thing that you should be looking at when making your decision.  Sure, you'll find a few that require any of your listed languages.  And sure, when these kids have finished UNI and want to work in IT (poor bastards) Java will be dead and buried, but there'll be a million and one "Legacy" systems lying around that use Java.<br> <br>Oh and teach them some database skills.  The local UNI here puts out graduates that don't know anything but Cross joins and have no idea what a left join is...</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first read the list I thought " Pascal " .
The reasons are that it 's a structured language , it is very easy to use and it 's able to teach extremely useful concepts like linked lists , recursive algo 's etc .
However... It 's nigh on useless these days to have " Pascal " on your CV ( I 'm sure both the Pascal developers out there will disagree - Yes I 'm looking at you Delphi devs... ) I did C , Pascal and COBOL at UNI and since then I have spent some 15 years writing VB ( 3- &gt; .Net ) , C , C + + , C # etc .
In the last 2 years I have been working mostly with Java .
And I hate it .
It 's slow , memory hungry , it 's tools are Sh * t ( Matisse 's creators are on drugs ) .
That being said , pick up your local paper ( or go to Seek - also bleh ) and look at the proportion of jobs advertised these days that require Java .
It 's quite significant .
That 's the sort of thing that you should be looking at when making your decision .
Sure , you 'll find a few that require any of your listed languages .
And sure , when these kids have finished UNI and want to work in IT ( poor bastards ) Java will be dead and buried , but there 'll be a million and one " Legacy " systems lying around that use Java .
Oh and teach them some database skills .
The local UNI here puts out graduates that do n't know anything but Cross joins and have no idea what a left join is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first read the list I thought "Pascal".
The reasons are that it's a structured language, it is very easy to use and it's able to teach extremely useful concepts like linked lists, recursive algo's etc.
However...  It's nigh on useless these days to have "Pascal" on your CV (I'm sure both the Pascal developers out there will disagree - Yes I'm looking at you Delphi devs...) 
I did C, Pascal and COBOL at UNI and since then I have spent some 15 years writing VB (3-&gt;.Net), C, C++, C# etc.
In the last 2 years I have been working mostly with Java.
And I hate it.
It's slow, memory hungry, it's tools are Sh*t (Matisse's creators are on drugs).
That being said, pick up your local paper (or go to Seek - also bleh) and look at the proportion of jobs advertised these days that require Java.
It's quite significant.
That's the sort of thing that you should be looking at when making your decision.
Sure, you'll find a few that require any of your listed languages.
And sure, when these kids have finished UNI and want to work in IT (poor bastards) Java will be dead and buried, but there'll be a million and one "Legacy" systems lying around that use Java.
Oh and teach them some database skills.
The local UNI here puts out graduates that don't know anything but Cross joins and have no idea what a left join is...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31490832</id>
	<title>Whoah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268664360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think many many people here are going overboard? Has anyone actually been to the website to have a look at the sample challenges?</p><p>From what it looks like, the contest is more about coming up with an appropriate ALGORITHM - that chain of simple logical actions required to solve the problem - and then implementing it in the language of your choice. Further, the challenges and solutions are really really easy if you can see them. The execution time limits are there to discourage brute-force algorithms that cycle through every possible solution to see if it works because they're not as elegant and they're just not needed. At the end of the day I don't think it matters what language you choose, as long as the algorithm is right and it's well written. I'm going to defend BASIC and say that it's still an easy to learn and useful language - but I'm not going to defend VB as I think it blows, Turbo BASIC was the shiznitz back in the day!</p><p>Example: That bacteria samples problem. An experiment involving bacteria - which doubles in number every day - has been ruined. All you know is how many bacteria you had at the end, and that the start number was odd. You want to know how many days the experiment ran for and what the start number was.</p><p>Solution:  Take the end-bacteria number, and keep dividing it by 2 until you have an odd-number. The number of times you divide equals the number of days.</p><p>After initialisation and clean-up, you would only need a few lines to implement this algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think many many people here are going overboard ?
Has anyone actually been to the website to have a look at the sample challenges ? From what it looks like , the contest is more about coming up with an appropriate ALGORITHM - that chain of simple logical actions required to solve the problem - and then implementing it in the language of your choice .
Further , the challenges and solutions are really really easy if you can see them .
The execution time limits are there to discourage brute-force algorithms that cycle through every possible solution to see if it works because they 're not as elegant and they 're just not needed .
At the end of the day I do n't think it matters what language you choose , as long as the algorithm is right and it 's well written .
I 'm going to defend BASIC and say that it 's still an easy to learn and useful language - but I 'm not going to defend VB as I think it blows , Turbo BASIC was the shiznitz back in the day ! Example : That bacteria samples problem .
An experiment involving bacteria - which doubles in number every day - has been ruined .
All you know is how many bacteria you had at the end , and that the start number was odd .
You want to know how many days the experiment ran for and what the start number was.Solution : Take the end-bacteria number , and keep dividing it by 2 until you have an odd-number .
The number of times you divide equals the number of days.After initialisation and clean-up , you would only need a few lines to implement this algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think many many people here are going overboard?
Has anyone actually been to the website to have a look at the sample challenges?From what it looks like, the contest is more about coming up with an appropriate ALGORITHM - that chain of simple logical actions required to solve the problem - and then implementing it in the language of your choice.
Further, the challenges and solutions are really really easy if you can see them.
The execution time limits are there to discourage brute-force algorithms that cycle through every possible solution to see if it works because they're not as elegant and they're just not needed.
At the end of the day I don't think it matters what language you choose, as long as the algorithm is right and it's well written.
I'm going to defend BASIC and say that it's still an easy to learn and useful language - but I'm not going to defend VB as I think it blows, Turbo BASIC was the shiznitz back in the day!Example: That bacteria samples problem.
An experiment involving bacteria - which doubles in number every day - has been ruined.
All you know is how many bacteria you had at the end, and that the start number was odd.
You want to know how many days the experiment ran for and what the start number was.Solution:  Take the end-bacteria number, and keep dividing it by 2 until you have an odd-number.
The number of times you divide equals the number of days.After initialisation and clean-up, you would only need a few lines to implement this algorithm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478754</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1268596560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I get so tired of hearing this nonsense go unchallenged. If, for a given task, there is a fastest known algorithm, it's almost always going to run much faster in a compiled language than an interpreted language, period</p></div></blockquote><p>
Uh... no shit.
</p><p>
However, having an easier to code language that runs slower will:
</p><ol>
<li>show more easily measured difference between various algorithms</li><li>thus more easily showing the correct algorithm</li><li>which can then have its hot spot(s) re-written in C or even assembler</li></ol><p>
Using a low level language on 90\% of the code that is not performance sensitive is masochistic, bug-prone and largely un-necessary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get so tired of hearing this nonsense go unchallenged .
If , for a given task , there is a fastest known algorithm , it 's almost always going to run much faster in a compiled language than an interpreted language , period Uh... no shit .
However , having an easier to code language that runs slower will : show more easily measured difference between various algorithmsthus more easily showing the correct algorithmwhich can then have its hot spot ( s ) re-written in C or even assembler Using a low level language on 90 \ % of the code that is not performance sensitive is masochistic , bug-prone and largely un-necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get so tired of hearing this nonsense go unchallenged.
If, for a given task, there is a fastest known algorithm, it's almost always going to run much faster in a compiled language than an interpreted language, period
Uh... no shit.
However, having an easier to code language that runs slower will:

show more easily measured difference between various algorithmsthus more easily showing the correct algorithmwhich can then have its hot spot(s) re-written in C or even assembler
Using a low level language on 90\% of the code that is not performance sensitive is masochistic, bug-prone and largely un-necessary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478082</id>
	<title>What's more important: the kids or the school?</title>
	<author>c0lo</author>
	<datestamp>1268586720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your responsibility as a teacher/trainer/coach is toward the kids and not towards the olympic committee.<br>
And, based on your question, I think you are <b>about to fail them</b>: if you raised the question only with 2 months in advance and expect to make a kid (that doesn't know to write a "Hello world" in any language) suddenly so highly competitive that the speed of execution is the main discriminant.<br>
But again, no wonder... what can I expect from someone turning to Slashdot to get answers <b>that are going to influence the life of some kids</b>!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your responsibility as a teacher/trainer/coach is toward the kids and not towards the olympic committee .
And , based on your question , I think you are about to fail them : if you raised the question only with 2 months in advance and expect to make a kid ( that does n't know to write a " Hello world " in any language ) suddenly so highly competitive that the speed of execution is the main discriminant .
But again , no wonder... what can I expect from someone turning to Slashdot to get answers that are going to influence the life of some kids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your responsibility as a teacher/trainer/coach is toward the kids and not towards the olympic committee.
And, based on your question, I think you are about to fail them: if you raised the question only with 2 months in advance and expect to make a kid (that doesn't know to write a "Hello world" in any language) suddenly so highly competitive that the speed of execution is the main discriminant.
But again, no wonder... what can I expect from someone turning to Slashdot to get answers that are going to influence the life of some kids!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476664</id>
	<title>INTERCAL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268575500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Master it and everything else seems easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Master it and everything else seems easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Master it and everything else seems easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478500</id>
	<title>Re:Strange limitation</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1268592840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The competition is pretty hardcore at higher levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The competition is pretty hardcore at higher levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The competition is pretty hardcore at higher levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31522796</id>
	<title>Re:Teach them C++</title>
	<author>Endophage</author>
	<datestamp>1268926980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you would be amazed how much software for major (multi-billion $) companies is written in Java.  While C is (or at least was a year or so ago) the most popular choice for new open source projects, companies that rely on their software are turning to Java because of the existence of really good IDEs that make managing large code bases much easier.  In most cases I'd agree that learning C++ does make learning Java easier but if you want to teach some kids, Java is a much better option as pointers and pointer arithmetic is probably beyond most people without some previous knowledge of programming. I don't think we need to worry about employers as these are just kids we're talking about.  If they become interested enough in computing to want to have a career in it there's plenty of time to learn C++.<br> <br>

You might want to double check your facts on PHP.  You don't need a webserver.  You can just install php and run it from the command line ("$&gt;php <i>file.php</i>") and it certainly won't be dead as soon as what you're calling a mess is "cleaned up".  PHP is a server side language, everything you mention is client side or markup apart from AJAX that uses js at the client and PHP/ASP/Java/Ruby/etc... at the server end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you would be amazed how much software for major ( multi-billion $ ) companies is written in Java .
While C is ( or at least was a year or so ago ) the most popular choice for new open source projects , companies that rely on their software are turning to Java because of the existence of really good IDEs that make managing large code bases much easier .
In most cases I 'd agree that learning C + + does make learning Java easier but if you want to teach some kids , Java is a much better option as pointers and pointer arithmetic is probably beyond most people without some previous knowledge of programming .
I do n't think we need to worry about employers as these are just kids we 're talking about .
If they become interested enough in computing to want to have a career in it there 's plenty of time to learn C + + .
You might want to double check your facts on PHP .
You do n't need a webserver .
You can just install php and run it from the command line ( " $ &gt; php file.php " ) and it certainly wo n't be dead as soon as what you 're calling a mess is " cleaned up " .
PHP is a server side language , everything you mention is client side or markup apart from AJAX that uses js at the client and PHP/ASP/Java/Ruby/etc... at the server end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you would be amazed how much software for major (multi-billion $) companies is written in Java.
While C is (or at least was a year or so ago) the most popular choice for new open source projects, companies that rely on their software are turning to Java because of the existence of really good IDEs that make managing large code bases much easier.
In most cases I'd agree that learning C++ does make learning Java easier but if you want to teach some kids, Java is a much better option as pointers and pointer arithmetic is probably beyond most people without some previous knowledge of programming.
I don't think we need to worry about employers as these are just kids we're talking about.
If they become interested enough in computing to want to have a career in it there's plenty of time to learn C++.
You might want to double check your facts on PHP.
You don't need a webserver.
You can just install php and run it from the command line ("$&gt;php file.php") and it certainly won't be dead as soon as what you're calling a mess is "cleaned up".
PHP is a server side language, everything you mention is client side or markup apart from AJAX that uses js at the client and PHP/ASP/Java/Ruby/etc... at the server end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477286</id>
	<title>Just pick whatever you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268579640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to run into a time limit at a programming contest, you're not doing it right. If you have a good algorithm, it shouldn't matter - the judges will make sure that their reasonable algorithm wont hit time limit bounds on any problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to run into a time limit at a programming contest , you 're not doing it right .
If you have a good algorithm , it should n't matter - the judges will make sure that their reasonable algorithm wont hit time limit bounds on any problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to run into a time limit at a programming contest, you're not doing it right.
If you have a good algorithm, it shouldn't matter - the judges will make sure that their reasonable algorithm wont hit time limit bounds on any problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477260</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Python doesn't have a built-in JIT??  What's with all the Perl hate, then?</p></div><p>()*&amp;#)(*&amp;!@#)(*&amp;@)(!*^)@(^!!!!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Python does n't have a built-in JIT ? ?
What 's with all the Perl hate , then ? ( ) * &amp; # ) ( * &amp; ! @ # ) ( * &amp; @ ) ( ! * ^ ) @ ( ^ ! ! ! !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python doesn't have a built-in JIT??
What's with all the Perl hate, then?()*&amp;#)(*&amp;!@#)(*&amp;@)(!*^)@(^!!!!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477820</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1268584680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While the language used would increase the budget, the algorithms used will very quickly swamp any language gains.</p></div><p>I get so tired of hearing this nonsense go unchallenged. If, for a given task, there is a fastest known algorithm, it's almost always going to run much faster in a compiled language than an interpreted language, period. The idea that one can simply change algorithms to get better performance only applies when a better algorithm is known, and even then, it's still highly likely to run faster in a compiled language.</p><p>The exceptions are largely those cases where the bulk of the computation utilizes a highly optimized compiled routine in the interpreter. The reason it's so hard to beat the performance of the major interpreted languages on regular expression matching is that their regex engines are generally written in carefully tuned C.</p><p>This isn't to say that a compiled language is always the right tool for the job. Often, it is more cost-effective to spend less expensive programmer time on a project and throw the necessary hardware at it, but sometimes this is not possible or practical, as when one is coding for a resource-constrained platform. Also, over a long enough period of time, the cost of maintaining the hardware will eventually exceed the cost programming a more efficient solution. (With power-hungry PC servers, this point comes sooner than most people would expect, but generally not within the same quarter as the hardware allocation is made, so the accountants are blissfully oblivious to it.)</p><p>The long and the short of it is that, all other things being equal, most compiled languages are substantially faster than interpreted languages, often by an order of magnitude. Interpreted languages exist as a concession to the scarcity and cost of programmer time, not because one can always (or even often) magically pull a better algorithm out of one's hat and match the performance of compiled code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the language used would increase the budget , the algorithms used will very quickly swamp any language gains.I get so tired of hearing this nonsense go unchallenged .
If , for a given task , there is a fastest known algorithm , it 's almost always going to run much faster in a compiled language than an interpreted language , period .
The idea that one can simply change algorithms to get better performance only applies when a better algorithm is known , and even then , it 's still highly likely to run faster in a compiled language.The exceptions are largely those cases where the bulk of the computation utilizes a highly optimized compiled routine in the interpreter .
The reason it 's so hard to beat the performance of the major interpreted languages on regular expression matching is that their regex engines are generally written in carefully tuned C.This is n't to say that a compiled language is always the right tool for the job .
Often , it is more cost-effective to spend less expensive programmer time on a project and throw the necessary hardware at it , but sometimes this is not possible or practical , as when one is coding for a resource-constrained platform .
Also , over a long enough period of time , the cost of maintaining the hardware will eventually exceed the cost programming a more efficient solution .
( With power-hungry PC servers , this point comes sooner than most people would expect , but generally not within the same quarter as the hardware allocation is made , so the accountants are blissfully oblivious to it .
) The long and the short of it is that , all other things being equal , most compiled languages are substantially faster than interpreted languages , often by an order of magnitude .
Interpreted languages exist as a concession to the scarcity and cost of programmer time , not because one can always ( or even often ) magically pull a better algorithm out of one 's hat and match the performance of compiled code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the language used would increase the budget, the algorithms used will very quickly swamp any language gains.I get so tired of hearing this nonsense go unchallenged.
If, for a given task, there is a fastest known algorithm, it's almost always going to run much faster in a compiled language than an interpreted language, period.
The idea that one can simply change algorithms to get better performance only applies when a better algorithm is known, and even then, it's still highly likely to run faster in a compiled language.The exceptions are largely those cases where the bulk of the computation utilizes a highly optimized compiled routine in the interpreter.
The reason it's so hard to beat the performance of the major interpreted languages on regular expression matching is that their regex engines are generally written in carefully tuned C.This isn't to say that a compiled language is always the right tool for the job.
Often, it is more cost-effective to spend less expensive programmer time on a project and throw the necessary hardware at it, but sometimes this is not possible or practical, as when one is coding for a resource-constrained platform.
Also, over a long enough period of time, the cost of maintaining the hardware will eventually exceed the cost programming a more efficient solution.
(With power-hungry PC servers, this point comes sooner than most people would expect, but generally not within the same quarter as the hardware allocation is made, so the accountants are blissfully oblivious to it.
)The long and the short of it is that, all other things being equal, most compiled languages are substantially faster than interpreted languages, often by an order of magnitude.
Interpreted languages exist as a concession to the scarcity and cost of programmer time, not because one can always (or even often) magically pull a better algorithm out of one's hat and match the performance of compiled code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854</id>
	<title>Python will give you th least problems</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1268576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C, C++ and Java are not an option. They all need years to master and have numerous non-obvious pitfalls. Pascal is pretty limitad and definitly a historic design. PHP is obscure in palaces. Visual Basic still is a bad joke, confined to just one platform and wioth numerous design problems.</p><p>On the other hand Python is fine, with the only thing to master the indention. Not on the list, but Ruby would also be nice. And for a minimalistic, yet powerful language, loot at (again not on the list) Lua.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C , C + + and Java are not an option .
They all need years to master and have numerous non-obvious pitfalls .
Pascal is pretty limitad and definitly a historic design .
PHP is obscure in palaces .
Visual Basic still is a bad joke , confined to just one platform and wioth numerous design problems.On the other hand Python is fine , with the only thing to master the indention .
Not on the list , but Ruby would also be nice .
And for a minimalistic , yet powerful language , loot at ( again not on the list ) Lua .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C, C++ and Java are not an option.
They all need years to master and have numerous non-obvious pitfalls.
Pascal is pretty limitad and definitly a historic design.
PHP is obscure in palaces.
Visual Basic still is a bad joke, confined to just one platform and wioth numerous design problems.On the other hand Python is fine, with the only thing to master the indention.
Not on the list, but Ruby would also be nice.
And for a minimalistic, yet powerful language, loot at (again not on the list) Lua.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268577180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Python doesn't have a built-in JIT??  What's with all the Perl hate, then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Python does n't have a built-in JIT ? ?
What 's with all the Perl hate , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python doesn't have a built-in JIT??
What's with all the Perl hate, then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482256</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco -- PyPy as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268669520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PyPy has recently released their Python 2.5 - compatible version of Python with a GIT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PyPy has recently released their Python 2.5 - compatible version of Python with a GIT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PyPy has recently released their Python 2.5 - compatible version of Python with a GIT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476698</id>
	<title>anusscript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268575680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2.0 or later</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2.0 or later</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.0 or later</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481974</id>
	<title>Use CodeChef</title>
	<author>cylcyl</author>
	<datestamp>1268668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have not done so already, I would recommend using <a href="http://www.codechef.com/" title="codechef.com">http://www.codechef.com/</a> [codechef.com] as a source of practice tests for your students, it has tests in various degrees of difficulty and CPU limit. As many may have mentioned, programming competitions tend to have different CPU seconds for compiled lang like C/C++ and interpreted lang (Python, Java). Codechef does something similar, though you may want to check if the difference is reasonable for the competition you're preparing for.</p><p>Also, the site has a lot of foreign participants and daily ranking for benchmark tests, this way your students can see where they rank and you can help them improve.</p><p>As for language choice, I'd choose Java if you wish to orient your students to a more collaborative projects, or Python for more solo projects. Most other languages on your list have various problems listed above by others and won't get the students as far as these two would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have not done so already , I would recommend using http : //www.codechef.com/ [ codechef.com ] as a source of practice tests for your students , it has tests in various degrees of difficulty and CPU limit .
As many may have mentioned , programming competitions tend to have different CPU seconds for compiled lang like C/C + + and interpreted lang ( Python , Java ) .
Codechef does something similar , though you may want to check if the difference is reasonable for the competition you 're preparing for.Also , the site has a lot of foreign participants and daily ranking for benchmark tests , this way your students can see where they rank and you can help them improve.As for language choice , I 'd choose Java if you wish to orient your students to a more collaborative projects , or Python for more solo projects .
Most other languages on your list have various problems listed above by others and wo n't get the students as far as these two would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have not done so already, I would recommend using http://www.codechef.com/ [codechef.com] as a source of practice tests for your students, it has tests in various degrees of difficulty and CPU limit.
As many may have mentioned, programming competitions tend to have different CPU seconds for compiled lang like C/C++ and interpreted lang (Python, Java).
Codechef does something similar, though you may want to check if the difference is reasonable for the competition you're preparing for.Also, the site has a lot of foreign participants and daily ranking for benchmark tests, this way your students can see where they rank and you can help them improve.As for language choice, I'd choose Java if you wish to orient your students to a more collaborative projects, or Python for more solo projects.
Most other languages on your list have various problems listed above by others and won't get the students as far as these two would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477602</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>Larryish</author>
	<datestamp>1268582700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOLCODE would be easiest to learn for the cellphone-texting rugrats of today.</p><p>Example of Hello World program:</p><p>HAI<br>CAN HAS STDIO?<br>VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!"<br>KTHXBYE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOLCODE would be easiest to learn for the cellphone-texting rugrats of today.Example of Hello World program : HAICAN HAS STDIO ? VISIBLE " HAI WORLD !
" KTHXBYE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOLCODE would be easiest to learn for the cellphone-texting rugrats of today.Example of Hello World program:HAICAN HAS STDIO?VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!
"KTHXBYE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480516</id>
	<title>Re:Python or Java</title>
	<author>Xamusk</author>
	<datestamp>1268659500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot the most important fact in you advantages list: with Python, <b>lists are a built-in type</b>. Which pretty much means you have built-in powerful sort, without the need for importing nothing, and some other useful methods. Also, it has built-in strings, with <b>many</b> built-in methods. That pretty much covers many of the problems writing competition software, and definitely will give an edge, since properly programming those algorithms take a lot of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the most important fact in you advantages list : with Python , lists are a built-in type .
Which pretty much means you have built-in powerful sort , without the need for importing nothing , and some other useful methods .
Also , it has built-in strings , with many built-in methods .
That pretty much covers many of the problems writing competition software , and definitely will give an edge , since properly programming those algorithms take a lot of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the most important fact in you advantages list: with Python, lists are a built-in type.
Which pretty much means you have built-in powerful sort, without the need for importing nothing, and some other useful methods.
Also, it has built-in strings, with many built-in methods.
That pretty much covers many of the problems writing competition software, and definitely will give an edge, since properly programming those algorithms take a lot of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31493948</id>
	<title>Re:Many good choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Teach in a Teaching language not a "popular language" Scheme Lisp, Squeak Smalltalk, etc... are made for teaching programming concepts. Use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Teach in a Teaching language not a " popular language " Scheme Lisp , Squeak Smalltalk , etc... are made for teaching programming concepts .
Use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teach in a Teaching language not a "popular language" Scheme Lisp, Squeak Smalltalk, etc... are made for teaching programming concepts.
Use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476988</id>
	<title>Do some testing</title>
	<author>boxie</author>
	<datestamp>1268577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at the questions from previous years and implement some of them in python and see if your going to have run time issues.</p><p>if you have no issues, then chances are the kids are not either (since your teaching them, they will code in your style until they learn their own)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the questions from previous years and implement some of them in python and see if your going to have run time issues.if you have no issues , then chances are the kids are not either ( since your teaching them , they will code in your style until they learn their own )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the questions from previous years and implement some of them in python and see if your going to have run time issues.if you have no issues, then chances are the kids are not either (since your teaching them, they will code in your style until they learn their own)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478818</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Python; but stay with ver. 2.5, if speed becomes an issue just compile with Cython with minimal changes. This is probably a worthwhile pedagogical exercise, if time permits anyway. Optimization after functionality. Also, while Python 3.1 is probably best for an individual aware of backward incompatibility; for a classroom, use Python 2.5 to avoid confusion over the vast majority of code examples and books that hopefully the students will want to explore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Python ; but stay with ver .
2.5 , if speed becomes an issue just compile with Cython with minimal changes .
This is probably a worthwhile pedagogical exercise , if time permits anyway .
Optimization after functionality .
Also , while Python 3.1 is probably best for an individual aware of backward incompatibility ; for a classroom , use Python 2.5 to avoid confusion over the vast majority of code examples and books that hopefully the students will want to explore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python; but stay with ver.
2.5, if speed becomes an issue just compile with Cython with minimal changes.
This is probably a worthwhile pedagogical exercise, if time permits anyway.
Optimization after functionality.
Also, while Python 3.1 is probably best for an individual aware of backward incompatibility; for a classroom, use Python 2.5 to avoid confusion over the vast majority of code examples and books that hopefully the students will want to explore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477394</id>
	<title>Re:There's C then there's C written by newbies</title>
	<author>mkiwi</author>
	<datestamp>1268580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know too many novice (fresh off the boat) C programmers who ever need to worry about memory leak or access problems that wouldn't exist in any other strongly typed language.  That's something an intermediate or advanced person does.  More powerful features are for people who know the language better.  C is simple if you stick to basics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know too many novice ( fresh off the boat ) C programmers who ever need to worry about memory leak or access problems that would n't exist in any other strongly typed language .
That 's something an intermediate or advanced person does .
More powerful features are for people who know the language better .
C is simple if you stick to basics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know too many novice (fresh off the boat) C programmers who ever need to worry about memory leak or access problems that wouldn't exist in any other strongly typed language.
That's something an intermediate or advanced person does.
More powerful features are for people who know the language better.
C is simple if you stick to basics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476974</id>
	<title>Re:No option of Fortran?</title>
	<author>Stephen Tennant</author>
	<datestamp>1268577480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But then he must add a module for maintaining neckbeard</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then he must add a module for maintaining neckbeard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then he must add a module for maintaining neckbeard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31519964</id>
	<title>Re:Teach them C++</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268903460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>teach them C++, because</p></div><p>We all want these \_kids\_ to continue on to coding later, but you must face that most of them won't, and handle the short-term nature of the problem posed.</p><p>Except for your BASIC point, your points are only relevant for long-time professionals and benefits that won't happen in the measly "2 months" that the submitter has to prepare the kids. C++'s ease of switch to a different language, or an ability to \_read source\_ on 80\% of available software, isn't useful for this single \_chosen\_ language. They will learn to code to only work for the few hours the contest will last. That any one language will soon be "outdated" does not matter to these contest organizers.</p><p>The poster doesn't believe he's bridging the students into anything, and just wants a quick-to-learn syntax not prone to hidden side effects (I'm glaring at C and family there.) I suggest Python or VB, and lean to the latter. Casual Python users get no standard dev environment on Linux Distros or Windows, while VB's Official GUI underlines obvious mistakes and allow debugging runs when something isn't quite right. While I have yet to see any command line VB out there, kids REALLY won't like the CLI-related mucking that Python and most others require by default. A kid will miss the meaning of compiler errors that they will inevitably make, and make often. See this screenshot for a taste of sourness that VB doesn't suffer from: http://www.scripting.com/images/pythonErrorsMuticall.gif</p><p>Geez. I don't even recommend the language to grownups, but my hand was forced for the short amount of time. Rapid prototyping is the trait that is helpful here. A learning tool is supposed to have kids "riding bikes" with confidence first, and if they enjoy it then they are free move on to learn all of the remaining languages and use your insight in college and beyond.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>teach them C + + , becauseWe all want these \ _kids \ _ to continue on to coding later , but you must face that most of them wo n't , and handle the short-term nature of the problem posed.Except for your BASIC point , your points are only relevant for long-time professionals and benefits that wo n't happen in the measly " 2 months " that the submitter has to prepare the kids .
C + + 's ease of switch to a different language , or an ability to \ _read source \ _ on 80 \ % of available software , is n't useful for this single \ _chosen \ _ language .
They will learn to code to only work for the few hours the contest will last .
That any one language will soon be " outdated " does not matter to these contest organizers.The poster does n't believe he 's bridging the students into anything , and just wants a quick-to-learn syntax not prone to hidden side effects ( I 'm glaring at C and family there .
) I suggest Python or VB , and lean to the latter .
Casual Python users get no standard dev environment on Linux Distros or Windows , while VB 's Official GUI underlines obvious mistakes and allow debugging runs when something is n't quite right .
While I have yet to see any command line VB out there , kids REALLY wo n't like the CLI-related mucking that Python and most others require by default .
A kid will miss the meaning of compiler errors that they will inevitably make , and make often .
See this screenshot for a taste of sourness that VB does n't suffer from : http : //www.scripting.com/images/pythonErrorsMuticall.gifGeez .
I do n't even recommend the language to grownups , but my hand was forced for the short amount of time .
Rapid prototyping is the trait that is helpful here .
A learning tool is supposed to have kids " riding bikes " with confidence first , and if they enjoy it then they are free move on to learn all of the remaining languages and use your insight in college and beyond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teach them C++, becauseWe all want these \_kids\_ to continue on to coding later, but you must face that most of them won't, and handle the short-term nature of the problem posed.Except for your BASIC point, your points are only relevant for long-time professionals and benefits that won't happen in the measly "2 months" that the submitter has to prepare the kids.
C++'s ease of switch to a different language, or an ability to \_read source\_ on 80\% of available software, isn't useful for this single \_chosen\_ language.
They will learn to code to only work for the few hours the contest will last.
That any one language will soon be "outdated" does not matter to these contest organizers.The poster doesn't believe he's bridging the students into anything, and just wants a quick-to-learn syntax not prone to hidden side effects (I'm glaring at C and family there.
) I suggest Python or VB, and lean to the latter.
Casual Python users get no standard dev environment on Linux Distros or Windows, while VB's Official GUI underlines obvious mistakes and allow debugging runs when something isn't quite right.
While I have yet to see any command line VB out there, kids REALLY won't like the CLI-related mucking that Python and most others require by default.
A kid will miss the meaning of compiler errors that they will inevitably make, and make often.
See this screenshot for a taste of sourness that VB doesn't suffer from: http://www.scripting.com/images/pythonErrorsMuticall.gifGeez.
I don't even recommend the language to grownups, but my hand was forced for the short amount of time.
Rapid prototyping is the trait that is helpful here.
A learning tool is supposed to have kids "riding bikes" with confidence first, and if they enjoy it then they are free move on to learn all of the remaining languages and use your insight in college and beyond.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477062</id>
	<title>No Perl ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably because there would already by a module that solves the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because there would already by a module that solves the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because there would already by a module that solves the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477310</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1268579880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, my dislike for Perl has almost nothing to do with the runtime environment and more to do with the mindset that causes someone to think <a href="http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/periodic/" title="ozonehouse.com">this</a> [ozonehouse.com] is a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , my dislike for Perl has almost nothing to do with the runtime environment and more to do with the mindset that causes someone to think this [ ozonehouse.com ] is a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, my dislike for Perl has almost nothing to do with the runtime environment and more to do with the mindset that causes someone to think this [ozonehouse.com] is a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477402</id>
	<title>Re:Forget the higher level languages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268580480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want to give these kids a solid foundation to build on that will instill good habits and understanding of how computers work - C.</p></div><p>I assume you meant to say 'machine language'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to give these kids a solid foundation to build on that will instill good habits and understanding of how computers work - C.I assume you meant to say 'machine language' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to give these kids a solid foundation to build on that will instill good habits and understanding of how computers work - C.I assume you meant to say 'machine language'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480206</id>
	<title>Re:Perl !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268656260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Perl allows the programmer to do what he wants - regardless of the style</i></p><p>So long as the name of their style includes the word "obfuscated" somewhere in it.</p><p>LISP is the One True seed language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl allows the programmer to do what he wants - regardless of the styleSo long as the name of their style includes the word " obfuscated " somewhere in it.LISP is the One True seed language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perl allows the programmer to do what he wants - regardless of the styleSo long as the name of their style includes the word "obfuscated" somewhere in it.LISP is the One True seed language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477728</id>
	<title>Teach algorithms, not languages</title>
	<author>Zillidot</author>
	<datestamp>1268583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These types of programming contests are all about whether you can come up with a clever algorithm for solving the problem. With the right algorithm, CPU time limits should not be a problem for any of the languages; but if you're using the wrong algorithm, you're going to run out of time regardless of what language you use.</p><p>(Note: I was once a contestant in the Australian Informatics Olympiad as well as the International Olympiad in Informatics, and in subsequent years I have also tutored kids participating in the contest. None of the kids were at the beginners level, however.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These types of programming contests are all about whether you can come up with a clever algorithm for solving the problem .
With the right algorithm , CPU time limits should not be a problem for any of the languages ; but if you 're using the wrong algorithm , you 're going to run out of time regardless of what language you use .
( Note : I was once a contestant in the Australian Informatics Olympiad as well as the International Olympiad in Informatics , and in subsequent years I have also tutored kids participating in the contest .
None of the kids were at the beginners level , however .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These types of programming contests are all about whether you can come up with a clever algorithm for solving the problem.
With the right algorithm, CPU time limits should not be a problem for any of the languages; but if you're using the wrong algorithm, you're going to run out of time regardless of what language you use.
(Note: I was once a contestant in the Australian Informatics Olympiad as well as the International Olympiad in Informatics, and in subsequent years I have also tutored kids participating in the contest.
None of the kids were at the beginners level, however.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31491614</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268670840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Ruby Mafia" ?</p><p>I suppose you believe in the "liberal media" too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Ruby Mafia " ? I suppose you believe in the " liberal media " too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Ruby Mafia" ?I suppose you believe in the "liberal media" too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480376</id>
	<title>Slower yes, yet fast enough.</title>
	<author>ThePhilips</author>
	<datestamp>1268657820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> However, the test has a run-time CPU seconds limit, so using an interpreted language like Python could put the students at a disadvantage compared to using C.</p> </div><p> In my experience time limits are there to prevent students using primitive algorithms (the ones with exponential asymptotic performance).

</p><p> N.B. I would have recommended Perl instead - but I'd refrain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

</p><p> Python should be and is in fact fast enough for most tasks. Taking algorithms into account, C gives only marginal advantage: bubble sort would suck even if you'd write it in assembler.

</p><p> P.S. If that is still concern, one can allow interpreted languages to have e.g. twice more time compared to compiled languages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the test has a run-time CPU seconds limit , so using an interpreted language like Python could put the students at a disadvantage compared to using C. In my experience time limits are there to prevent students using primitive algorithms ( the ones with exponential asymptotic performance ) .
N.B. I would have recommended Perl instead - but I 'd refrain : ) Python should be and is in fact fast enough for most tasks .
Taking algorithms into account , C gives only marginal advantage : bubble sort would suck even if you 'd write it in assembler .
P.S. If that is still concern , one can allow interpreted languages to have e.g .
twice more time compared to compiled languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> However, the test has a run-time CPU seconds limit, so using an interpreted language like Python could put the students at a disadvantage compared to using C.  In my experience time limits are there to prevent students using primitive algorithms (the ones with exponential asymptotic performance).
N.B. I would have recommended Perl instead - but I'd refrain :)

 Python should be and is in fact fast enough for most tasks.
Taking algorithms into account, C gives only marginal advantage: bubble sort would suck even if you'd write it in assembler.
P.S. If that is still concern, one can allow interpreted languages to have e.g.
twice more time compared to compiled languages.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802</id>
	<title>Pascal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would go with Pascal. And if not, Java.</p><p>Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics. It has strong and static typing, making many errors very easy to catch at compile time. The case for Java is similar but the syntax and semantics are a bit more complicated.</p><p>C is terrible to teach, they'll have to deal with pointers all the time. Reading something from input? Pointers. Passing by reference? Pointers. Strings? Pointers. Sure you may omit that those are pointers but the segmentation faults will show up for regular reality checks. Same for C++. Python means working with dynamic typing. PHP dynamic and weak typing. Don't get me started on Visual Basic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would go with Pascal .
And if not , Java.Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics .
It has strong and static typing , making many errors very easy to catch at compile time .
The case for Java is similar but the syntax and semantics are a bit more complicated.C is terrible to teach , they 'll have to deal with pointers all the time .
Reading something from input ?
Pointers. Passing by reference ?
Pointers. Strings ?
Pointers. Sure you may omit that those are pointers but the segmentation faults will show up for regular reality checks .
Same for C + + .
Python means working with dynamic typing .
PHP dynamic and weak typing .
Do n't get me started on Visual Basic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would go with Pascal.
And if not, Java.Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics.
It has strong and static typing, making many errors very easy to catch at compile time.
The case for Java is similar but the syntax and semantics are a bit more complicated.C is terrible to teach, they'll have to deal with pointers all the time.
Reading something from input?
Pointers. Passing by reference?
Pointers. Strings?
Pointers. Sure you may omit that those are pointers but the segmentation faults will show up for regular reality checks.
Same for C++.
Python means working with dynamic typing.
PHP dynamic and weak typing.
Don't get me started on Visual Basic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31533470</id>
	<title>Re:Python will give you th least problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268940480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>var Pascal : Limitad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>var Pascal : Limitad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>var Pascal : Limitad</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476894</id>
	<title>Pthon, definitely</title>
	<author>cheese1756</author>
	<datestamp>1268576880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I wish I could say Java, I think that Python is easier to teach for beginning programmers. If the kids have some experience, though, you should teach them Java or C++.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I wish I could say Java , I think that Python is easier to teach for beginning programmers .
If the kids have some experience , though , you should teach them Java or C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I wish I could say Java, I think that Python is easier to teach for beginning programmers.
If the kids have some experience, though, you should teach them Java or C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31572546</id>
	<title>I agree totally.</title>
	<author>snuki</author>
	<datestamp>1269284880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the perfect is the enemy of the good;
It's more important to have something running now and to iterate on that, than to have something that will work better if we can get it to run at all.

Only if it proves that it's too slow should you worry about optimizing. And at least then you can look at it run, find the bottle neck and fix that, instead of wasting your time, from the beginning, in a much more difficult, but faster language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the perfect is the enemy of the good ; It 's more important to have something running now and to iterate on that , than to have something that will work better if we can get it to run at all .
Only if it proves that it 's too slow should you worry about optimizing .
And at least then you can look at it run , find the bottle neck and fix that , instead of wasting your time , from the beginning , in a much more difficult , but faster language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the perfect is the enemy of the good;
It's more important to have something running now and to iterate on that, than to have something that will work better if we can get it to run at all.
Only if it proves that it's too slow should you worry about optimizing.
And at least then you can look at it run, find the bottle neck and fix that, instead of wasting your time, from the beginning, in a much more difficult, but faster language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479982</id>
	<title>No Perl? You've got to be f**ken kidding</title>
	<author>DavidApi</author>
	<datestamp>1268653680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they realise how much of the world's systems run Perl? And given that it's pretty much built into every major OS (yes, Windows needs a download). Wow, this is mind-boggling. I still can't get over it. And the fact that simple Perl is just that - so simple. Hello World is a one liner. No classes to define, no libraries to import, no header files to include.</p><p>And you can write poetry with it! (bonus points?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they realise how much of the world 's systems run Perl ?
And given that it 's pretty much built into every major OS ( yes , Windows needs a download ) .
Wow , this is mind-boggling .
I still ca n't get over it .
And the fact that simple Perl is just that - so simple .
Hello World is a one liner .
No classes to define , no libraries to import , no header files to include.And you can write poetry with it !
( bonus points ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they realise how much of the world's systems run Perl?
And given that it's pretty much built into every major OS (yes, Windows needs a download).
Wow, this is mind-boggling.
I still can't get over it.
And the fact that simple Perl is just that - so simple.
Hello World is a one liner.
No classes to define, no libraries to import, no header files to include.And you can write poetry with it!
(bonus points?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478834</id>
	<title>Run-time limits...</title>
	<author>Chris Snook</author>
	<datestamp>1268684580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are meant to sidestep the halting problem.  I've never seen a programming contest problem that couldn't be solved within the time limit with a naive O(n^3) algorithm in the slowest interpreted language available.</p><p>Python will be fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are meant to sidestep the halting problem .
I 've never seen a programming contest problem that could n't be solved within the time limit with a naive O ( n ^ 3 ) algorithm in the slowest interpreted language available.Python will be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are meant to sidestep the halting problem.
I've never seen a programming contest problem that couldn't be solved within the time limit with a naive O(n^3) algorithm in the slowest interpreted language available.Python will be fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480700</id>
	<title>Put it to a vote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268661000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask the ones you plan to tutor what they wish to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask the ones you plan to tutor what they wish to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask the ones you plan to tutor what they wish to learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477186</id>
	<title>Re:Many good choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268578920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess one would really suggest plain TeX. The macro packages make the challenge too comfortable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess one would really suggest plain TeX .
The macro packages make the challenge too comfortable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess one would really suggest plain TeX.
The macro packages make the challenge too comfortable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477656</id>
	<title>Submitter should have RTFA</title>
	<author>BoppreH</author>
	<datestamp>1268583120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the rulebook (pdf file):<p><div class="quote"><p>Programs written in Visual Basic, Java, PHP or Python may run slower due to the overhead
of the associated interpreters and/or virtual machines. The judges may at their discretion
increase the time limits for these languages accordingly. Contestants should note that this
will not give these languages an advantage</p></div><p>That's how contests with multiple language choices almost always work. It's really easy to implement a naive solution in C that performs 10x better than a good solution in Python, even for fairly large inputs.<br> <br>With that rule in mind, I say go for Python all the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the rulebook ( pdf file ) : Programs written in Visual Basic , Java , PHP or Python may run slower due to the overhead of the associated interpreters and/or virtual machines .
The judges may at their discretion increase the time limits for these languages accordingly .
Contestants should note that this will not give these languages an advantageThat 's how contests with multiple language choices almost always work .
It 's really easy to implement a naive solution in C that performs 10x better than a good solution in Python , even for fairly large inputs .
With that rule in mind , I say go for Python all the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the rulebook (pdf file):Programs written in Visual Basic, Java, PHP or Python may run slower due to the overhead
of the associated interpreters and/or virtual machines.
The judges may at their discretion
increase the time limits for these languages accordingly.
Contestants should note that this
will not give these languages an advantageThat's how contests with multiple language choices almost always work.
It's really easy to implement a naive solution in C that performs 10x better than a good solution in Python, even for fairly large inputs.
With that rule in mind, I say go for Python all the way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479490</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>dvice\_null</author>
	<datestamp>1268648880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C is faster in the hands of experienced programmers. Python is probably faster in the hands of newbies as there are lots of build in functions that most likely do things faster than they could do if they wrote those functions themselves in C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C is faster in the hands of experienced programmers .
Python is probably faster in the hands of newbies as there are lots of build in functions that most likely do things faster than they could do if they wrote those functions themselves in C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C is faster in the hands of experienced programmers.
Python is probably faster in the hands of newbies as there are lots of build in functions that most likely do things faster than they could do if they wrote those functions themselves in C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31507794</id>
	<title>Re:Teach them C++</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268837700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>teach them C++, because
</p><ul>
<li>Most software (iirc 80\% or so) today is written in C or C++</li><li>C++ is <b>the</b> mandatory language for nearly all well paid programming jobs</li></ul></div><p>I think you misspelled "Java and C#" and wrote "C++" instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>teach them C + + , because Most software ( iirc 80 \ % or so ) today is written in C or C + + C + + is the mandatory language for nearly all well paid programming jobsI think you misspelled " Java and C # " and wrote " C + + " instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teach them C++, because

Most software (iirc 80\% or so) today is written in C or C++C++ is the mandatory language for nearly all well paid programming jobsI think you misspelled "Java and C#" and wrote "C++" instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477630</id>
	<title>Why no functional languages?</title>
	<author>Jeff Satterley</author>
	<datestamp>1268582940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Teach the kids Scheme!

Seriously, it's a better transition from pure math to programming.  (http://www.teach-scheme.org/)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Teach the kids Scheme !
Seriously , it 's a better transition from pure math to programming .
( http : //www.teach-scheme.org/ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teach the kids Scheme!
Seriously, it's a better transition from pure math to programming.
(http://www.teach-scheme.org/)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482338</id>
	<title>Re:Ask them</title>
	<author>dgym</author>
	<datestamp>1268670000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To give them a reasonable chance of making a good decision make sure they understand that when development time is limited C is rarely going to produce the fastest results.
<br> <br>
Given the obvious (and hopefully obviously wrong to anyone with experience) observation that C is harder to program but runs faster, and Python is easy to program but runs slower, I think a lot of people would go for C because it seems to be better placed for winning the competition.
<br> <br>
However, code normally has bottlenecks, so 95\% of run time will be spent in 5\% of the code. Optimizing the parts that aren't bottlenecks is a severe waste of time, and will surely affect your competition results. Anyone who knew what they were doing and wanted to win would (1) write the bulk in a high level language, (2) use a profiler and identify the bottle necks (3) spend their time trying to find better algorithms at the bottle necks, (4) finally optimize the code at the bottlenecks, pushing it to a lower level language if skill and time allowed.
<br> <br>
Going with the OP's original inclination would work well here. Python can be used for stages 1-3 and will give students time to try more algorithms on the all important stage 3. For stage 4 you can use c to create a dll/so and use the ctypes library to drive it directly from Python. If anyone stumbles at this stage then it isn't too much of a problem, they already have a viable entry they can submit and be proud of from the end of stage 3, this extra bit is just for the really talented to go for 1st place.
<br> <br>
Not only would this approach give the students an advantage in the competition, but also a really good idea of how to tackle projects in the real world too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To give them a reasonable chance of making a good decision make sure they understand that when development time is limited C is rarely going to produce the fastest results .
Given the obvious ( and hopefully obviously wrong to anyone with experience ) observation that C is harder to program but runs faster , and Python is easy to program but runs slower , I think a lot of people would go for C because it seems to be better placed for winning the competition .
However , code normally has bottlenecks , so 95 \ % of run time will be spent in 5 \ % of the code .
Optimizing the parts that are n't bottlenecks is a severe waste of time , and will surely affect your competition results .
Anyone who knew what they were doing and wanted to win would ( 1 ) write the bulk in a high level language , ( 2 ) use a profiler and identify the bottle necks ( 3 ) spend their time trying to find better algorithms at the bottle necks , ( 4 ) finally optimize the code at the bottlenecks , pushing it to a lower level language if skill and time allowed .
Going with the OP 's original inclination would work well here .
Python can be used for stages 1-3 and will give students time to try more algorithms on the all important stage 3 .
For stage 4 you can use c to create a dll/so and use the ctypes library to drive it directly from Python .
If anyone stumbles at this stage then it is n't too much of a problem , they already have a viable entry they can submit and be proud of from the end of stage 3 , this extra bit is just for the really talented to go for 1st place .
Not only would this approach give the students an advantage in the competition , but also a really good idea of how to tackle projects in the real world too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To give them a reasonable chance of making a good decision make sure they understand that when development time is limited C is rarely going to produce the fastest results.
Given the obvious (and hopefully obviously wrong to anyone with experience) observation that C is harder to program but runs faster, and Python is easy to program but runs slower, I think a lot of people would go for C because it seems to be better placed for winning the competition.
However, code normally has bottlenecks, so 95\% of run time will be spent in 5\% of the code.
Optimizing the parts that aren't bottlenecks is a severe waste of time, and will surely affect your competition results.
Anyone who knew what they were doing and wanted to win would (1) write the bulk in a high level language, (2) use a profiler and identify the bottle necks (3) spend their time trying to find better algorithms at the bottle necks, (4) finally optimize the code at the bottlenecks, pushing it to a lower level language if skill and time allowed.
Going with the OP's original inclination would work well here.
Python can be used for stages 1-3 and will give students time to try more algorithms on the all important stage 3.
For stage 4 you can use c to create a dll/so and use the ctypes library to drive it directly from Python.
If anyone stumbles at this stage then it isn't too much of a problem, they already have a viable entry they can submit and be proud of from the end of stage 3, this extra bit is just for the really talented to go for 1st place.
Not only would this approach give the students an advantage in the competition, but also a really good idea of how to tackle projects in the real world too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478844</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1268684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``And in Python if the CPU is your constraint - which it isn't in most programs - then you write that little bit of CPU code in C or C++ and call that one part from Python. This keeps the rest of the program easy to debug and portable.''</p><p>While this is certainly a good point, I have found that, in practice, most programs fall in one of two categories:</p><p>1. CPU usage isn't much of a problem. Python is a great choice.</p><p>2. The bulk of your program needs to be \_fast\_. This practically rules out current Python implementations.</p><p>In the second case, you could still write the rest of your program in Python, but it isn't always clear that this is a good idea. You would be pulling in a dependency on a specific implementation of a pretty bulky library (no Python implementation I know of is really small, and compatibility of the foreign function interface isn't great between different implementations, and I'm not even sure about different versions of the same implementation).</p><p>There are, of course, also cases where you can write most of your program in Python and small parts in different languages, but I find those cases to be relatively rare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` And in Python if the CPU is your constraint - which it is n't in most programs - then you write that little bit of CPU code in C or C + + and call that one part from Python .
This keeps the rest of the program easy to debug and portable .
''While this is certainly a good point , I have found that , in practice , most programs fall in one of two categories : 1 .
CPU usage is n't much of a problem .
Python is a great choice.2 .
The bulk of your program needs to be \ _fast \ _ .
This practically rules out current Python implementations.In the second case , you could still write the rest of your program in Python , but it is n't always clear that this is a good idea .
You would be pulling in a dependency on a specific implementation of a pretty bulky library ( no Python implementation I know of is really small , and compatibility of the foreign function interface is n't great between different implementations , and I 'm not even sure about different versions of the same implementation ) .There are , of course , also cases where you can write most of your program in Python and small parts in different languages , but I find those cases to be relatively rare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``And in Python if the CPU is your constraint - which it isn't in most programs - then you write that little bit of CPU code in C or C++ and call that one part from Python.
This keeps the rest of the program easy to debug and portable.
''While this is certainly a good point, I have found that, in practice, most programs fall in one of two categories:1.
CPU usage isn't much of a problem.
Python is a great choice.2.
The bulk of your program needs to be \_fast\_.
This practically rules out current Python implementations.In the second case, you could still write the rest of your program in Python, but it isn't always clear that this is a good idea.
You would be pulling in a dependency on a specific implementation of a pretty bulky library (no Python implementation I know of is really small, and compatibility of the foreign function interface isn't great between different implementations, and I'm not even sure about different versions of the same implementation).There are, of course, also cases where you can write most of your program in Python and small parts in different languages, but I find those cases to be relatively rare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478342</id>
	<title>Re:Many good choices</title>
	<author>wuzzeb</author>
	<datestamp>1268590200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you might be interested in the article in the  <a href="http://www.haskell.org/sitewiki/images/8/85/TMR-Issue13.pdf" title="haskell.org" rel="nofollow">Monad.Reader Issue 13</a> [haskell.org] (warning: pdf) where the TeX language is used to solve the 2008 ICFP programming contest.</p><p>He writes a program to control a Mars rover in TeX, it is really impressive.  You can even download the source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you might be interested in the article in the Monad.Reader Issue 13 [ haskell.org ] ( warning : pdf ) where the TeX language is used to solve the 2008 ICFP programming contest.He writes a program to control a Mars rover in TeX , it is really impressive .
You can even download the source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you might be interested in the article in the  Monad.Reader Issue 13 [haskell.org] (warning: pdf) where the TeX language is used to solve the 2008 ICFP programming contest.He writes a program to control a Mars rover in TeX, it is really impressive.
You can even download the source code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477024</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some algorithms are better suited for some languages or paradigms than others. Quicksort, for example, relies on mutability to be efficient. A language like Haskell, where the list to be sorted would be recreated a bunch of times, would not be well suited. Even with the same algorithm, it would run slower. Sometimes the language dictates the algorithm that would be best to use, or what data structures make sense. That said, I think I would have to recommend, of the languages listed, Python because of its general reputation for being easy to learn. Plus, it has decent support for several paradigms. Want to be OO? Cool. Want to functional? We can do that too. It opens the mind to more ways of thinking about a problem than more single paradigm languages, and that can be very useful in this sort of contest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some algorithms are better suited for some languages or paradigms than others .
Quicksort , for example , relies on mutability to be efficient .
A language like Haskell , where the list to be sorted would be recreated a bunch of times , would not be well suited .
Even with the same algorithm , it would run slower .
Sometimes the language dictates the algorithm that would be best to use , or what data structures make sense .
That said , I think I would have to recommend , of the languages listed , Python because of its general reputation for being easy to learn .
Plus , it has decent support for several paradigms .
Want to be OO ?
Cool. Want to functional ?
We can do that too .
It opens the mind to more ways of thinking about a problem than more single paradigm languages , and that can be very useful in this sort of contest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some algorithms are better suited for some languages or paradigms than others.
Quicksort, for example, relies on mutability to be efficient.
A language like Haskell, where the list to be sorted would be recreated a bunch of times, would not be well suited.
Even with the same algorithm, it would run slower.
Sometimes the language dictates the algorithm that would be best to use, or what data structures make sense.
That said, I think I would have to recommend, of the languages listed, Python because of its general reputation for being easy to learn.
Plus, it has decent support for several paradigms.
Want to be OO?
Cool. Want to functional?
We can do that too.
It opens the mind to more ways of thinking about a problem than more single paradigm languages, and that can be very useful in this sort of contest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479536</id>
	<title>It's just me</title>
	<author>Exitar</author>
	<datestamp>1268649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or teaching a language to non programmers children and sending them to Informatics Olympiad after two months is pretending too much?<br>In addition to the language, you must first teach them very basic concepts like variables, loops, recursion...<br>As soon as they start to digest them and write their first "Hello World"... BANG! You send them to Informatics Olympiad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or teaching a language to non programmers children and sending them to Informatics Olympiad after two months is pretending too much ? In addition to the language , you must first teach them very basic concepts like variables , loops , recursion...As soon as they start to digest them and write their first " Hello World " ... BANG ! You send them to Informatics Olympiad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or teaching a language to non programmers children and sending them to Informatics Olympiad after two months is pretending too much?In addition to the language, you must first teach them very basic concepts like variables, loops, recursion...As soon as they start to digest them and write their first "Hello World"... BANG! You send them to Informatics Olympiad!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31549024</id>
	<title>Been there, done that</title>
	<author>ljuwaidah</author>
	<datestamp>1269095220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been to many programming competitions like that (and always came 2nd.. Damn it!)</p><p>The contests I've been to (local versions of ACM ICPC) that allowed Java and C/C++.</p><p>I've also tried TopCoder's contests and Facebook's.</p><p>In the ACM contests the algorithms aren't really time-consuming so Java's slowness doesn't really matter, however, because the input and output are in files, Java's approach to dealing with files is very annoying.</p><p>In TopCoder there are many options (VB (not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET), C/C++, Java, Python, and I think Perl), again, time isn't of essence here.</p><p>In Facebook's algorithm contests however, the algorithms are pretty complicated and need to be damn efficient, I did have a hard time with Perl because it's slow, however, they claim that all the algorithms can be run in the allowed time limit.</p><p>I guess it's pretty clear that time isn't a big issue in these contests (well, except Facebook's but that's because if you solve the problems you can apply to work there!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been to many programming competitions like that ( and always came 2nd.. Damn it !
) The contests I 've been to ( local versions of ACM ICPC ) that allowed Java and C/C + + .I 've also tried TopCoder 's contests and Facebook 's.In the ACM contests the algorithms are n't really time-consuming so Java 's slowness does n't really matter , however , because the input and output are in files , Java 's approach to dealing with files is very annoying.In TopCoder there are many options ( VB ( not .NET ) , C/C + + , Java , Python , and I think Perl ) , again , time is n't of essence here.In Facebook 's algorithm contests however , the algorithms are pretty complicated and need to be damn efficient , I did have a hard time with Perl because it 's slow , however , they claim that all the algorithms can be run in the allowed time limit.I guess it 's pretty clear that time is n't a big issue in these contests ( well , except Facebook 's but that 's because if you solve the problems you can apply to work there !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been to many programming competitions like that (and always came 2nd.. Damn it!
)The contests I've been to (local versions of ACM ICPC) that allowed Java and C/C++.I've also tried TopCoder's contests and Facebook's.In the ACM contests the algorithms aren't really time-consuming so Java's slowness doesn't really matter, however, because the input and output are in files, Java's approach to dealing with files is very annoying.In TopCoder there are many options (VB (not .NET), C/C++, Java, Python, and I think Perl), again, time isn't of essence here.In Facebook's algorithm contests however, the algorithms are pretty complicated and need to be damn efficient, I did have a hard time with Perl because it's slow, however, they claim that all the algorithms can be run in the allowed time limit.I guess it's pretty clear that time isn't a big issue in these contests (well, except Facebook's but that's because if you solve the problems you can apply to work there!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477984</id>
	<title>Re:Boy you're going to get lots of replies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really a story on slashdot that triggers over zelous responses advocating people favourite programming language?  That's be a first.... NOT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really a story on slashdot that triggers over zelous responses advocating people favourite programming language ?
That 's be a first.... NOT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really a story on slashdot that triggers over zelous responses advocating people favourite programming language?
That's be a first.... NOT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477376</id>
	<title>Re:Pascal</title>
	<author>buntsai</author>
	<datestamp>1268580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Most people miss the point that python has strong (dynamic) typing.
</p><p>
As for c++, <i>modern</i> (i.e. good!) c++ code should look very much like python, except that it is statically typed, of course: Pointers should be avoided. No <tt>char*</tt>, definitely no manual memory management. No "<tt>delete</tt>"s. Only strings and vectors. Segmentation faults usual indicate that programming skills need to be updated...
</p><p>
Having said that, I would still recommend python: clean and elegant.
</p><p>
I started off with Pascal but it is a strait jacket of a language. Too old fashioned for this day and age. It is curious that Pascal has aged so much more badly than Lisp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people miss the point that python has strong ( dynamic ) typing .
As for c + + , modern ( i.e .
good ! ) c + + code should look very much like python , except that it is statically typed , of course : Pointers should be avoided .
No char * , definitely no manual memory management .
No " delete " s. Only strings and vectors .
Segmentation faults usual indicate that programming skills need to be updated.. . Having said that , I would still recommend python : clean and elegant .
I started off with Pascal but it is a strait jacket of a language .
Too old fashioned for this day and age .
It is curious that Pascal has aged so much more badly than Lisp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Most people miss the point that python has strong (dynamic) typing.
As for c++, modern (i.e.
good!) c++ code should look very much like python, except that it is statically typed, of course: Pointers should be avoided.
No char*, definitely no manual memory management.
No "delete"s. Only strings and vectors.
Segmentation faults usual indicate that programming skills need to be updated...

Having said that, I would still recommend python: clean and elegant.
I started off with Pascal but it is a strait jacket of a language.
Too old fashioned for this day and age.
It is curious that Pascal has aged so much more badly than Lisp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480656</id>
	<title>Tutoring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO, teach the kids anything they're liable to retain.  Python's a nice choice for clarity mixed with power.  Yes it would be nice if the kids really did well but even if they don't, having them walk away truly enjoying their experience programming seems far more a beneficial end than being frustrated with complicated syntax.<br>I'm not suggesting dumbing it down; just suggesting that this tutoring goes beyond the contest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO , teach the kids anything they 're liable to retain .
Python 's a nice choice for clarity mixed with power .
Yes it would be nice if the kids really did well but even if they do n't , having them walk away truly enjoying their experience programming seems far more a beneficial end than being frustrated with complicated syntax.I 'm not suggesting dumbing it down ; just suggesting that this tutoring goes beyond the contest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO, teach the kids anything they're liable to retain.
Python's a nice choice for clarity mixed with power.
Yes it would be nice if the kids really did well but even if they don't, having them walk away truly enjoying their experience programming seems far more a beneficial end than being frustrated with complicated syntax.I'm not suggesting dumbing it down; just suggesting that this tutoring goes beyond the contest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31497704</id>
	<title>Re:Things you might want to consider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268761800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh sure, we wouldn't want to encourage the students to work in a language like PHP or ASP that is actually relevant or embraced outside the academy. That might puncture the walls of isolation between academic programmers and those that do actual work in the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh sure , we would n't want to encourage the students to work in a language like PHP or ASP that is actually relevant or embraced outside the academy .
That might puncture the walls of isolation between academic programmers and those that do actual work in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh sure, we wouldn't want to encourage the students to work in a language like PHP or ASP that is actually relevant or embraced outside the academy.
That might puncture the walls of isolation between academic programmers and those that do actual work in the real world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477440</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>webruss</author>
	<datestamp>1268580900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree.  I think python is going to be the easiest to teach them and will be plenty fast enough.

Here is a link to an article about a teacher introducing high school students to python and the successes encountered.

<a href="http://www.python.org/workshops/2000-01/proceedings/papers/elkner/pyYHS.html" title="python.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.python.org/workshops/2000-01/proceedings/papers/elkner/pyYHS.html</a> [python.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
I think python is going to be the easiest to teach them and will be plenty fast enough .
Here is a link to an article about a teacher introducing high school students to python and the successes encountered .
http : //www.python.org/workshops/2000-01/proceedings/papers/elkner/pyYHS.html [ python.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
I think python is going to be the easiest to teach them and will be plenty fast enough.
Here is a link to an article about a teacher introducing high school students to python and the successes encountered.
http://www.python.org/workshops/2000-01/proceedings/papers/elkner/pyYHS.html [python.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477902</id>
	<title>Gratz on your reading skillz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using a non-accepted language is bound to win them points</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using a non-accepted language is bound to win them points</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using a non-accepted language is bound to win them points</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478442</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1268591760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if speed is an issue you can always execute something written in C and have python deal with the results. do the high level stuff in python where speed isn't an issue. best tool for the job and all that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if speed is an issue you can always execute something written in C and have python deal with the results .
do the high level stuff in python where speed is n't an issue .
best tool for the job and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if speed is an issue you can always execute something written in C and have python deal with the results.
do the high level stuff in python where speed isn't an issue.
best tool for the job and all that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476878</id>
	<title>Performance isn't the most important issue</title>
	<author>urusan</author>
	<datestamp>1268576820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite the performance issues, Python is still useful for a huge number of things. The performance issues are generally only a problem for HPC, high-throughput server programs, and high-end gaming. I would be less worried about that and more worried about what impact it will have on the students.</p><p>In this context, the main advantage of Python over C/C++ is that it's a relatively fun language and will be more likely to catch the attention of the students. It will allow them to take on more complex (and interesting) projects in a shorter time. It would also be more valuable to future non-programmers, who could use it for scripting.</p><p>On the other hand, it seems to me that those students that are going to be programmers in the future would be better off being exposed to things like static typing and pointers. C would be much better in this regard, so if the students are being tracked towards programming majors then it would probably be a better choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the performance issues , Python is still useful for a huge number of things .
The performance issues are generally only a problem for HPC , high-throughput server programs , and high-end gaming .
I would be less worried about that and more worried about what impact it will have on the students.In this context , the main advantage of Python over C/C + + is that it 's a relatively fun language and will be more likely to catch the attention of the students .
It will allow them to take on more complex ( and interesting ) projects in a shorter time .
It would also be more valuable to future non-programmers , who could use it for scripting.On the other hand , it seems to me that those students that are going to be programmers in the future would be better off being exposed to things like static typing and pointers .
C would be much better in this regard , so if the students are being tracked towards programming majors then it would probably be a better choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the performance issues, Python is still useful for a huge number of things.
The performance issues are generally only a problem for HPC, high-throughput server programs, and high-end gaming.
I would be less worried about that and more worried about what impact it will have on the students.In this context, the main advantage of Python over C/C++ is that it's a relatively fun language and will be more likely to catch the attention of the students.
It will allow them to take on more complex (and interesting) projects in a shorter time.
It would also be more valuable to future non-programmers, who could use it for scripting.On the other hand, it seems to me that those students that are going to be programmers in the future would be better off being exposed to things like static typing and pointers.
C would be much better in this regard, so if the students are being tracked towards programming majors then it would probably be a better choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480358</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>kirill.s</author>
	<datestamp>1268657700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Python would definitely be a good choice, but the kids risk not being able to understand the <a href="http://xkcd.com/303/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Compiling</a> [xkcd.com] joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Python would definitely be a good choice , but the kids risk not being able to understand the Compiling [ xkcd.com ] joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python would definitely be a good choice, but the kids risk not being able to understand the Compiling [xkcd.com] joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476684</id>
	<title>English, but seriously</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1268575620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>English, Vulcan, or whatever the local human language is.  Or just give everyone a translation device.</p><p>Oh, you mean the language for the programs.  My bad, I thought you meant for the instructions and problem description, sorry.</p><p>But seriously....</p><p>Your first line is to see what eligible language the students mostly know already or what is taught in that school or school system and go with it.</p><p>Barring that, go with whatever is commonly used in most university college freshman programming classes.  It may not give them the best chance to win but learning it will have practical value.</p><p>If you know the types of problems they will give, everything else being equal go with the language that is best suited for the problem type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>English , Vulcan , or whatever the local human language is .
Or just give everyone a translation device.Oh , you mean the language for the programs .
My bad , I thought you meant for the instructions and problem description , sorry.But seriously....Your first line is to see what eligible language the students mostly know already or what is taught in that school or school system and go with it.Barring that , go with whatever is commonly used in most university college freshman programming classes .
It may not give them the best chance to win but learning it will have practical value.If you know the types of problems they will give , everything else being equal go with the language that is best suited for the problem type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>English, Vulcan, or whatever the local human language is.
Or just give everyone a translation device.Oh, you mean the language for the programs.
My bad, I thought you meant for the instructions and problem description, sorry.But seriously....Your first line is to see what eligible language the students mostly know already or what is taught in that school or school system and go with it.Barring that, go with whatever is commonly used in most university college freshman programming classes.
It may not give them the best chance to win but learning it will have practical value.If you know the types of problems they will give, everything else being equal go with the language that is best suited for the problem type.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477328</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1268580060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Python people don't (generally) claim Perl is slow.  Their objection is the <em>language itself</em>.</p><p>(I liked my brief exposure to Perl, but it is a tough language to learn and retain.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Python people do n't ( generally ) claim Perl is slow .
Their objection is the language itself .
( I liked my brief exposure to Perl , but it is a tough language to learn and retain .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python people don't (generally) claim Perl is slow.
Their objection is the language itself.
(I liked my brief exposure to Perl, but it is a tough language to learn and retain.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478612</id>
	<title>Re:No option of Fortran?</title>
	<author>BigFootApe</author>
	<datestamp>1268594460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll just have to learn how to write FORTRAN in any language. Soon enough, they will become a Real Programmer.</p><p>A valuable lesson, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll just have to learn how to write FORTRAN in any language .
Soon enough , they will become a Real Programmer.A valuable lesson , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll just have to learn how to write FORTRAN in any language.
Soon enough, they will become a Real Programmer.A valuable lesson, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477866</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268585100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is it that you're programming that can't be done with <a href="http://scratch.mit.edu/" title="mit.edu">scratch</a> [mit.edu] ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it that you 're programming that ca n't be done with scratch [ mit.edu ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it that you're programming that can't be done with scratch [mit.edu] ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480438</id>
	<title>Re:Strange limitation</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1268658660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CPU time and memory are <i>finite</i> resources. The sooner the new developer learn this, better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CPU time and memory are finite resources .
The sooner the new developer learn this , better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CPU time and memory are finite resources.
The sooner the new developer learn this, better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31586202</id>
	<title>Python is more complicated than C</title>
	<author>phorgan1</author>
	<datestamp>1269368760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've programmed in both for years, and the syntax of python is much more complicated than C.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've programmed in both for years , and the syntax of python is much more complicated than C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've programmed in both for years, and the syntax of python is much more complicated than C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477580</id>
	<title>You are silly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268582520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realize C was considered &ldquo;high level&rdquo; at one point? Your comment about the Java &ldquo;engine&rdquo; is likewise baloney. Your post is saturated with ignorance and it is shameful you have positioned yourself to impose any habits on anyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize C was considered    high level    at one point ?
Your comment about the Java    engine    is likewise baloney .
Your post is saturated with ignorance and it is shameful you have positioned yourself to impose any habits on anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize C was considered “high level” at one point?
Your comment about the Java “engine” is likewise baloney.
Your post is saturated with ignorance and it is shameful you have positioned yourself to impose any habits on anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31496604</id>
	<title>These languages are not replaceable</title>
	<author>smartson</author>
	<datestamp>1268758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is hard to choose the best one since they are not replaceable. What about introduction to programming without specific languages? What if you ask kids about their preference? Also look at <a href="http://www.jvoegele.com/software/langcomp.html" title="jvoegele.com" rel="nofollow">Programming Language Comparison</a> [jvoegele.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is hard to choose the best one since they are not replaceable .
What about introduction to programming without specific languages ?
What if you ask kids about their preference ?
Also look at Programming Language Comparison [ jvoegele.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is hard to choose the best one since they are not replaceable.
What about introduction to programming without specific languages?
What if you ask kids about their preference?
Also look at Programming Language Comparison [jvoegele.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479270</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1268646660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... this depends on the implementation that the examiners require. If you're allowed to use any runtime at all, then there are lots of (JIT) compilers for Python - IronPython, Jython, and Unladen Swallow are all reasonably fast (Psyco may be faster; I've never seen it used). However, they all also have slight differences, even if only in what version of the language they support, from the reference implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... this depends on the implementation that the examiners require .
If you 're allowed to use any runtime at all , then there are lots of ( JIT ) compilers for Python - IronPython , Jython , and Unladen Swallow are all reasonably fast ( Psyco may be faster ; I 've never seen it used ) .
However , they all also have slight differences , even if only in what version of the language they support , from the reference implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... this depends on the implementation that the examiners require.
If you're allowed to use any runtime at all, then there are lots of (JIT) compilers for Python - IronPython, Jython, and Unladen Swallow are all reasonably fast (Psyco may be faster; I've never seen it used).
However, they all also have slight differences, even if only in what version of the language they support, from the reference implementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480186</id>
	<title>Avoid "object oriented" languages</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1268656080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an incredible performance penalty for most object oriented code written by beginners: they aren't taught to avoid the layers of abstraction that eat away at your performance, and they often hide incredible errors behind layers of abstraction that make debugging a nightmare.</p><p>Python seems a good compromise: as a scripted language, it's quite portable. It has good text processing, there's a large base of small examples to teach students with, and it doesn't suffer from that horrid mass of badly written, interdependendent, unstable and unnecessary utilities known as CPAN that clutters a lot of Perl programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an incredible performance penalty for most object oriented code written by beginners : they are n't taught to avoid the layers of abstraction that eat away at your performance , and they often hide incredible errors behind layers of abstraction that make debugging a nightmare.Python seems a good compromise : as a scripted language , it 's quite portable .
It has good text processing , there 's a large base of small examples to teach students with , and it does n't suffer from that horrid mass of badly written , interdependendent , unstable and unnecessary utilities known as CPAN that clutters a lot of Perl programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an incredible performance penalty for most object oriented code written by beginners: they aren't taught to avoid the layers of abstraction that eat away at your performance, and they often hide incredible errors behind layers of abstraction that make debugging a nightmare.Python seems a good compromise: as a scripted language, it's quite portable.
It has good text processing, there's a large base of small examples to teach students with, and it doesn't suffer from that horrid mass of badly written, interdependendent, unstable and unnecessary utilities known as CPAN that clutters a lot of Perl programming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478316</id>
	<title>Re:Many good choices</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1268589780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you have something against PostScript?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you have something against PostScript ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you have something against PostScript?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694</id>
	<title>I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268575680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing that the CPU limits are generous and are more about filtering out bad algorithms than bad languages.</p><p>For example, someone using stooge sort instead of quicksort...</p><p>While the language used would increase the budget, the algorithms used will very quickly swamp any language gains.</p><p>When I did programming contests, they were more bound on thought (how quickly you can come up with an algorithm) and then implementation time.  Rarely did compute time come into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that the CPU limits are generous and are more about filtering out bad algorithms than bad languages.For example , someone using stooge sort instead of quicksort...While the language used would increase the budget , the algorithms used will very quickly swamp any language gains.When I did programming contests , they were more bound on thought ( how quickly you can come up with an algorithm ) and then implementation time .
Rarely did compute time come into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that the CPU limits are generous and are more about filtering out bad algorithms than bad languages.For example, someone using stooge sort instead of quicksort...While the language used would increase the budget, the algorithms used will very quickly swamp any language gains.When I did programming contests, they were more bound on thought (how quickly you can come up with an algorithm) and then implementation time.
Rarely did compute time come into it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479896</id>
	<title>Python or C</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268652840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go Python or C.<br>Python - interpreted and OOPsy. Simplified and limited C curriculum is easy to understand.<br>Visual Basic - never really used it, although my first language was plain old BASIC.<br>Pascal - no use in learning this language any more. C++ simply sucks. Java is a better choice than Pascal or C++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go Python or C.Python - interpreted and OOPsy .
Simplified and limited C curriculum is easy to understand.Visual Basic - never really used it , although my first language was plain old BASIC.Pascal - no use in learning this language any more .
C + + simply sucks .
Java is a better choice than Pascal or C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go Python or C.Python - interpreted and OOPsy.
Simplified and limited C curriculum is easy to understand.Visual Basic - never really used it, although my first language was plain old BASIC.Pascal - no use in learning this language any more.
C++ simply sucks.
Java is a better choice than Pascal or C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31490204</id>
	<title>Re:There's C then there's C written by newbies</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1268660280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And such things cannot be done by newbies in java and python? I suppose it takes real experts to code up a massive memory leak in java (*cough* meta data not unloaded in apache *cough*).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And such things can not be done by newbies in java and python ?
I suppose it takes real experts to code up a massive memory leak in java ( * cough * meta data not unloaded in apache * cough * ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And such things cannot be done by newbies in java and python?
I suppose it takes real experts to code up a massive memory leak in java (*cough* meta data not unloaded in apache *cough*).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479472</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hating on Perl was about Perl's syntax, semantics, and maintainability, not about the efficiency of the main implementations of Python and Perl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hating on Perl was about Perl 's syntax , semantics , and maintainability , not about the efficiency of the main implementations of Python and Perl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hating on Perl was about Perl's syntax, semantics, and maintainability, not about the efficiency of the main implementations of Python and Perl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480308</id>
	<title>Flowcharts</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1268657160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to teach them flowcharts.  Teach them a little about sorting algorithms.  With respect to databases, they should at least know what the acronym CRUD stands for.  At least introduce them to the name "Don Knuth" if not pull some simple examples from his books.  They really need to know about common bugs like off by one errors, etc.  Have at least a short discussion about each line of:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software\_bug#Common\_types\_of\_computer\_bugs" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software\_bug#Common\_types\_of\_computer\_bugs</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The folks telling you to teach then the vi editor or python or javascript whatever are confusing the trees with the forest.  Learning to program by memorizing Stroustrup is like learning to drive by memorizing the Chilton technical manual, interesting, but a complete waste of time.  On the other hand, a kid with a plan will succeed even if all they can write in is BASIC.  A kid who knows Shakespeare can write something interesting with a crayon, at least compared to an idiot in front of the worlds most powerful word processor.</p><p>The kids also need to learn the patterns and anti-patterns, for obvious reasons.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design\_pattern\_(computer\_science)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design\_pattern\_(computer\_science)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to teach them flowcharts .
Teach them a little about sorting algorithms .
With respect to databases , they should at least know what the acronym CRUD stands for .
At least introduce them to the name " Don Knuth " if not pull some simple examples from his books .
They really need to know about common bugs like off by one errors , etc .
Have at least a short discussion about each line of : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software \ _bug # Common \ _types \ _of \ _computer \ _bugs [ wikipedia.org ] The folks telling you to teach then the vi editor or python or javascript whatever are confusing the trees with the forest .
Learning to program by memorizing Stroustrup is like learning to drive by memorizing the Chilton technical manual , interesting , but a complete waste of time .
On the other hand , a kid with a plan will succeed even if all they can write in is BASIC .
A kid who knows Shakespeare can write something interesting with a crayon , at least compared to an idiot in front of the worlds most powerful word processor.The kids also need to learn the patterns and anti-patterns , for obvious reasons.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design \ _pattern \ _ ( computer \ _science ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to teach them flowcharts.
Teach them a little about sorting algorithms.
With respect to databases, they should at least know what the acronym CRUD stands for.
At least introduce them to the name "Don Knuth" if not pull some simple examples from his books.
They really need to know about common bugs like off by one errors, etc.
Have at least a short discussion about each line of:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software\_bug#Common\_types\_of\_computer\_bugs [wikipedia.org]The folks telling you to teach then the vi editor or python or javascript whatever are confusing the trees with the forest.
Learning to program by memorizing Stroustrup is like learning to drive by memorizing the Chilton technical manual, interesting, but a complete waste of time.
On the other hand, a kid with a plan will succeed even if all they can write in is BASIC.
A kid who knows Shakespeare can write something interesting with a crayon, at least compared to an idiot in front of the worlds most powerful word processor.The kids also need to learn the patterns and anti-patterns, for obvious reasons.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design\_pattern\_(computer\_science) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31491208</id>
	<title>Re:Teach them C++</title>
	<author>injustus</author>
	<datestamp>1268667240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would not let any student touch PHP with a ten-foot pole, but your statement is false, no webserver need, you can run PHP from command line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not let any student touch PHP with a ten-foot pole , but your statement is false , no webserver need , you can run PHP from command line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not let any student touch PHP with a ten-foot pole, but your statement is false, no webserver need, you can run PHP from command line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502160</id>
	<title>Re:Go With Your Gut</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1268737740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would stay away from C/C++.  In the hands of novices in a timed activity, I would wager it would be more trouble than it's worth.</p></div><p>What do they mean "End of statement expected"?</p><p>Oh right. I forgot the Semicolon.</p><p>Now I've got 4 other errors by puting in that semicolon. Better take it away again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would stay away from C/C + + .
In the hands of novices in a timed activity , I would wager it would be more trouble than it 's worth.What do they mean " End of statement expected " ? Oh right .
I forgot the Semicolon.Now I 've got 4 other errors by puting in that semicolon .
Better take it away again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would stay away from C/C++.
In the hands of novices in a timed activity, I would wager it would be more trouble than it's worth.What do they mean "End of statement expected"?Oh right.
I forgot the Semicolon.Now I've got 4 other errors by puting in that semicolon.
Better take it away again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31491178</id>
	<title>Python</title>
	<author>JMatopos</author>
	<datestamp>1268667120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go for ease of use over speed.</p><p>If the contest allows entries in Python, then you would expect that python code is capable of running fast enough to win the contest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go for ease of use over speed.If the contest allows entries in Python , then you would expect that python code is capable of running fast enough to win the contest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go for ease of use over speed.If the contest allows entries in Python, then you would expect that python code is capable of running fast enough to win the contest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479380</id>
	<title>Re:Language shouldn't push you past the limit</title>
	<author>verdante</author>
	<datestamp>1268647740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having competed in a handful of collegiate programming contests about 10 years ago, the CPU time limit was never even a passing concern. Granted, we were coding in C++, but even in Python, any solution that hits the CPU limit on these contests is quite likely an unnecessarily complex algorithm.</p></div><p>Python makes for much faster coding and debugging and works on many problems.  But there's a whole range of contest problems bomb out in Python:

</p><p>1) Large inputs or outputs and short time limits.  Python's "print" statement is simply not fast enough for large-output problems.

</p><p>2) Billions of booleans.   In C++ you would use bitboards and bitarrays, maybe a 100MB worth.  Using native Python data structures the memory can run into gigabytes.  Using numpy, the bit-twiddling will still be many times slower.

</p><p>3) Some problems with tight loops and a time limit is set at a couple times the speed of the author's C or Java solution.  Python being 10x slower on such loops takes it over the time limit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having competed in a handful of collegiate programming contests about 10 years ago , the CPU time limit was never even a passing concern .
Granted , we were coding in C + + , but even in Python , any solution that hits the CPU limit on these contests is quite likely an unnecessarily complex algorithm.Python makes for much faster coding and debugging and works on many problems .
But there 's a whole range of contest problems bomb out in Python : 1 ) Large inputs or outputs and short time limits .
Python 's " print " statement is simply not fast enough for large-output problems .
2 ) Billions of booleans .
In C + + you would use bitboards and bitarrays , maybe a 100MB worth .
Using native Python data structures the memory can run into gigabytes .
Using numpy , the bit-twiddling will still be many times slower .
3 ) Some problems with tight loops and a time limit is set at a couple times the speed of the author 's C or Java solution .
Python being 10x slower on such loops takes it over the time limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having competed in a handful of collegiate programming contests about 10 years ago, the CPU time limit was never even a passing concern.
Granted, we were coding in C++, but even in Python, any solution that hits the CPU limit on these contests is quite likely an unnecessarily complex algorithm.Python makes for much faster coding and debugging and works on many problems.
But there's a whole range of contest problems bomb out in Python:

1) Large inputs or outputs and short time limits.
Python's "print" statement is simply not fast enough for large-output problems.
2) Billions of booleans.
In C++ you would use bitboards and bitarrays, maybe a 100MB worth.
Using native Python data structures the memory can run into gigabytes.
Using numpy, the bit-twiddling will still be many times slower.
3) Some problems with tight loops and a time limit is set at a couple times the speed of the author's C or Java solution.
Python being 10x slower on such loops takes it over the time limit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31492074</id>
	<title>And</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1268675940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not Perl?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not Perl ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not Perl?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31487964</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1268648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm guessing that the CPU limits are generous and are more about filtering out bad algorithms than bad languages.</i></p><p>Unless, of course, running time features into the scoring...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that the CPU limits are generous and are more about filtering out bad algorithms than bad languages.Unless , of course , running time features into the scoring.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that the CPU limits are generous and are more about filtering out bad algorithms than bad languages.Unless, of course, running time features into the scoring...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477954</id>
	<title>I also recommend Python</title>
	<author>O('\_')O\_Bush</author>
	<datestamp>1268585700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even though I do 99\% of my work in Java, C/C++, VB, or shell scripts, the few times that I have written in Python, it was an absolute pleasure.<br><br>The libraries that I used kicked Java/C++ library asses, to the extend that what was going to be a "short" 500 line program in Java dealing with parsing images, turned into an 80 line program in Python.<br><br>The best part is, it was extremely easy to debug as I wrote, since just about any line I dropped into the source file, I could check with the interpreter.<br><br>It also only took half an hour to pick up from other OOP languages.<br><br>I &lt;3 Python</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I do 99 \ % of my work in Java , C/C + + , VB , or shell scripts , the few times that I have written in Python , it was an absolute pleasure.The libraries that I used kicked Java/C + + library asses , to the extend that what was going to be a " short " 500 line program in Java dealing with parsing images , turned into an 80 line program in Python.The best part is , it was extremely easy to debug as I wrote , since just about any line I dropped into the source file , I could check with the interpreter.It also only took half an hour to pick up from other OOP languages.I &lt; 3 Python</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I do 99\% of my work in Java, C/C++, VB, or shell scripts, the few times that I have written in Python, it was an absolute pleasure.The libraries that I used kicked Java/C++ library asses, to the extend that what was going to be a "short" 500 line program in Java dealing with parsing images, turned into an 80 line program in Python.The best part is, it was extremely easy to debug as I wrote, since just about any line I dropped into the source file, I could check with the interpreter.It also only took half an hour to pick up from other OOP languages.I &lt;3 Python</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482810</id>
	<title>Slow languages are usually better first languages</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1268671980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many of us ran BASIC or Logo on a home computer that struggled to keep up with our more complex programs? It is OK to learn a first language and grow out of it to the point that you never use it again. The important thing is that you learn from it.</p><p>It seems to me that your worry is misplaced by being concerned about CPU time when a new C programmer is going to sink a tremendous amount of time debugging compared to a new python/php/javascript/whatever programmer.</p><p>Java isn't really any easier than C, although I like both languages I've been doing this for a while. When I first started I messed around in BASIC for a decade before learning C, Pascal and asm in the same year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of us ran BASIC or Logo on a home computer that struggled to keep up with our more complex programs ?
It is OK to learn a first language and grow out of it to the point that you never use it again .
The important thing is that you learn from it.It seems to me that your worry is misplaced by being concerned about CPU time when a new C programmer is going to sink a tremendous amount of time debugging compared to a new python/php/javascript/whatever programmer.Java is n't really any easier than C , although I like both languages I 've been doing this for a while .
When I first started I messed around in BASIC for a decade before learning C , Pascal and asm in the same year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of us ran BASIC or Logo on a home computer that struggled to keep up with our more complex programs?
It is OK to learn a first language and grow out of it to the point that you never use it again.
The important thing is that you learn from it.It seems to me that your worry is misplaced by being concerned about CPU time when a new C programmer is going to sink a tremendous amount of time debugging compared to a new python/php/javascript/whatever programmer.Java isn't really any easier than C, although I like both languages I've been doing this for a while.
When I first started I messed around in BASIC for a decade before learning C, Pascal and asm in the same year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482200</id>
	<title>Re:The syntax viewpoint is an oversimplification.</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1268669160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like Python</p></div><p>I think you meant "du last two decades", as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_Python" title="wikipedia.org">Python's first release was in 1991</a> [wikipedia.org]. What qualifies as "mature" in your opinion? Is it OK to start using ALGOL yet?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like PythonI think you meant " du last two decades " , as Python 's first release was in 1991 [ wikipedia.org ] .
What qualifies as " mature " in your opinion ?
Is it OK to start using ALGOL yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad that the list of languages includes only immature dynamic languages du jour like PythonI think you meant "du last two decades", as Python's first release was in 1991 [wikipedia.org].
What qualifies as "mature" in your opinion?
Is it OK to start using ALGOL yet?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31494774</id>
	<title>Depends on your primary objective</title>
	<author>ThornTech</author>
	<datestamp>1268751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want the kids to win the competition, then Python would be your best choice because they can provide more features with less code.

If you want the kids to learn the most about programming, then definitely choose C. It is the foundation of all the other programming languages. If you start with C, they will have the background to learn any of the other languages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want the kids to win the competition , then Python would be your best choice because they can provide more features with less code .
If you want the kids to learn the most about programming , then definitely choose C. It is the foundation of all the other programming languages .
If you start with C , they will have the background to learn any of the other languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want the kids to win the competition, then Python would be your best choice because they can provide more features with less code.
If you want the kids to learn the most about programming, then definitely choose C. It is the foundation of all the other programming languages.
If you start with C, they will have the background to learn any of the other languages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478880</id>
	<title>Logo</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1268685360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Teach them Logo, it was good enough when I was a kid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Teach them Logo , it was good enough when I was a kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teach them Logo, it was good enough when I was a kid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480906</id>
	<title>For the love of the bunny: Pascal.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1268662320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, use the right tool for the task, Pascal is compiled and has clean simple syntax which is easy to catch.</p><p>All the other languages are more complex, and whatever people say, interpreted languages still lag behind in general terms when it comes to speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , use the right tool for the task , Pascal is compiled and has clean simple syntax which is easy to catch.All the other languages are more complex , and whatever people say , interpreted languages still lag behind in general terms when it comes to speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, use the right tool for the task, Pascal is compiled and has clean simple syntax which is easy to catch.All the other languages are more complex, and whatever people say, interpreted languages still lag behind in general terms when it comes to speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477208</id>
	<title>assembler</title>
	<author>swigabyte</author>
	<datestamp>1268579040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go with assembler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go with assembler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go with assembler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477792</id>
	<title>Complexity and data structures are more important</title>
	<author>dleonard0</author>
	<datestamp>1268584440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think if you are worried about the efficiency of their solution you ought to explain complexity/order notation, and then apply it to a some practical data structures, like arrays or hash maps. Even more awesome if you get them to do some time measurements in easy language X so to demonstrate the effect of complexity.

At crunch time, if they can judge the design trade-offs of their model&amp;implementation, then that will eclipse any speed benefits of a compiled language.

Good luck!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if you are worried about the efficiency of their solution you ought to explain complexity/order notation , and then apply it to a some practical data structures , like arrays or hash maps .
Even more awesome if you get them to do some time measurements in easy language X so to demonstrate the effect of complexity .
At crunch time , if they can judge the design trade-offs of their model&amp;implementation , then that will eclipse any speed benefits of a compiled language .
Good luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if you are worried about the efficiency of their solution you ought to explain complexity/order notation, and then apply it to a some practical data structures, like arrays or hash maps.
Even more awesome if you get them to do some time measurements in easy language X so to demonstrate the effect of complexity.
At crunch time, if they can judge the design trade-offs of their model&amp;implementation, then that will eclipse any speed benefits of a compiled language.
Good luck!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479424</id>
	<title>Re:Many good choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TeX is a Turing-complete language. LaTeX is a library written in TeX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TeX is a Turing-complete language .
LaTeX is a library written in TeX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TeX is a Turing-complete language.
LaTeX is a library written in TeX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477368</id>
	<title>A wiseguy, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268580240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, someone using stooge sort instead of quicksort...</p></div><p>That depends. If you're putting Moe in front of Larry, or if you're putting Larry in front of Curly. And if you add Shemp, well then, you start getting into reeeeaaallly intersting stuff! Nyuk,nyuk, nyuk. Woowoowoowoowoo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , someone using stooge sort instead of quicksort...That depends .
If you 're putting Moe in front of Larry , or if you 're putting Larry in front of Curly .
And if you add Shemp , well then , you start getting into reeeeaaallly intersting stuff !
Nyuk,nyuk , nyuk .
Woowoowoowoowoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, someone using stooge sort instead of quicksort...That depends.
If you're putting Moe in front of Larry, or if you're putting Larry in front of Curly.
And if you add Shemp, well then, you start getting into reeeeaaallly intersting stuff!
Nyuk,nyuk, nyuk.
Woowoowoowoowoo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481392</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy... can't resist...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268665140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say in practice it's usually ~2-3 times slower than C if you're coding 'Java-style' and using objects.<br>It gets nearly as fast (~1.2x) if you code C-style Java with fixed-size arrays of primitive types.</p><p>In some rare cases I've gotten solutions that were timing out in Java to pass by simply rewriting them in C, but it's usually not worth the trouble, and the extensive Java libraries are pretty convenient for these sort of things.<br>It depends, though. If time limits are set based on C++ solutions, and no extra time is given for Java, you'll time out <em>a lot</em>. Assuming they're not that though on kids.</p><p>Now I'm sure someone will come along and remind us that in certain limited and purely hypothetical scenarios, Java can be marginally faster than C, but they're full of shit. Java has always been slower and more memory-hungry than well-written C, and best bet is it always will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say in practice it 's usually ~ 2-3 times slower than C if you 're coding 'Java-style ' and using objects.It gets nearly as fast ( ~ 1.2x ) if you code C-style Java with fixed-size arrays of primitive types.In some rare cases I 've gotten solutions that were timing out in Java to pass by simply rewriting them in C , but it 's usually not worth the trouble , and the extensive Java libraries are pretty convenient for these sort of things.It depends , though .
If time limits are set based on C + + solutions , and no extra time is given for Java , you 'll time out a lot .
Assuming they 're not that though on kids.Now I 'm sure someone will come along and remind us that in certain limited and purely hypothetical scenarios , Java can be marginally faster than C , but they 're full of shit .
Java has always been slower and more memory-hungry than well-written C , and best bet is it always will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say in practice it's usually ~2-3 times slower than C if you're coding 'Java-style' and using objects.It gets nearly as fast (~1.2x) if you code C-style Java with fixed-size arrays of primitive types.In some rare cases I've gotten solutions that were timing out in Java to pass by simply rewriting them in C, but it's usually not worth the trouble, and the extensive Java libraries are pretty convenient for these sort of things.It depends, though.
If time limits are set based on C++ solutions, and no extra time is given for Java, you'll time out a lot.
Assuming they're not that though on kids.Now I'm sure someone will come along and remind us that in certain limited and purely hypothetical scenarios, Java can be marginally faster than C, but they're full of shit.
Java has always been slower and more memory-hungry than well-written C, and best bet is it always will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479752</id>
	<title>Re:How about the simplest of languages?...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, if you're not too concerned about readability, you could go for Whitespace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace\_(programming\_language)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , if you 're not too concerned about readability , you could go for Whitespace : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace \ _ ( programming \ _language )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, if you're not too concerned about readability, you could go for Whitespace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace\_(programming\_language)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482224</id>
	<title>Lego NXT</title>
	<author>peterofoz</author>
	<datestamp>1268669340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd use the Lego Mindstorms robotics set, with an NXT processor. That way, the programming results are more tangible and you can solve just about any problem likely to come up in a programming contest with it. For some fun, check out the First Lego League challenges. <a href="http://www.firstlegoleague.org/" title="firstlegoleague.org">http://www.firstlegoleague.org/</a> [firstlegoleague.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd use the Lego Mindstorms robotics set , with an NXT processor .
That way , the programming results are more tangible and you can solve just about any problem likely to come up in a programming contest with it .
For some fun , check out the First Lego League challenges .
http : //www.firstlegoleague.org/ [ firstlegoleague.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd use the Lego Mindstorms robotics set, with an NXT processor.
That way, the programming results are more tangible and you can solve just about any problem likely to come up in a programming contest with it.
For some fun, check out the First Lego League challenges.
http://www.firstlegoleague.org/ [firstlegoleague.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31489862</id>
	<title>Re:Teach them C++</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1268658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C++ is definitely still a very popular language, but it is losing ground. While I doubt it will ever vanish entirely, I expect that within the next decade it will diminish until it is no longer the most common language for new development, let alone being more popular than the rest put together. JIT-compiled languages like Java and C# are catching up very rapidly. True embedded development will always be in a relatively low-level language, but things like phones are started to expect developers to use Java or C# or sometimes even Python. Finally, don't forget JavaScript - not only is it also becoming a JIT-compiled language on most popular implementations (even IE, whenever 9 comes out), it's used on nearly every PC-like device (smartphones, Internet tablets, handheld gaming consoles, and of course desktops/laptops).</p><p>As for C vs. C++, there are definitely some advantages to learning C. One of them is that learning the C++ way of doing things obscures some information from the inexperienced coder - e.g. a lot of people seem to not realize that overloaded operators, such as  for cout, are actually procedure calls - and another is that C++ is a much more complex language to learn; C holds your hand less, but learning enough to read other peoples' C code, and write good C code for other people to read, takes less time than the equivalent learning for C++.</p><p>As another poster pointed out, your knowledge of Pascal is completely obsolete. In similar vein, I wonder if you've even glanced at a modern BASIC derivative; aside from the generally human-readable syntax, which admittedly constrains one's options slightly in how you write your code (no, for(;;) is not a valid way to write a "forever" or while (true) loop in VB, I'm sorry) it bears almost no resemblance to the BASIC of which Dijkstra spoke. I see more goto in C/C++ than in modern VB (which doesn't even need it for exceptions anymore), it cleanly supports procedural or OOP paradigms, and while it does suffer the "hides what the runtime is doing" somewhat (garbage collection, etc.) it is functionally near-identical to Java.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + is definitely still a very popular language , but it is losing ground .
While I doubt it will ever vanish entirely , I expect that within the next decade it will diminish until it is no longer the most common language for new development , let alone being more popular than the rest put together .
JIT-compiled languages like Java and C # are catching up very rapidly .
True embedded development will always be in a relatively low-level language , but things like phones are started to expect developers to use Java or C # or sometimes even Python .
Finally , do n't forget JavaScript - not only is it also becoming a JIT-compiled language on most popular implementations ( even IE , whenever 9 comes out ) , it 's used on nearly every PC-like device ( smartphones , Internet tablets , handheld gaming consoles , and of course desktops/laptops ) .As for C vs. C + + , there are definitely some advantages to learning C. One of them is that learning the C + + way of doing things obscures some information from the inexperienced coder - e.g .
a lot of people seem to not realize that overloaded operators , such as for cout , are actually procedure calls - and another is that C + + is a much more complex language to learn ; C holds your hand less , but learning enough to read other peoples ' C code , and write good C code for other people to read , takes less time than the equivalent learning for C + + .As another poster pointed out , your knowledge of Pascal is completely obsolete .
In similar vein , I wonder if you 've even glanced at a modern BASIC derivative ; aside from the generally human-readable syntax , which admittedly constrains one 's options slightly in how you write your code ( no , for ( ; ; ) is not a valid way to write a " forever " or while ( true ) loop in VB , I 'm sorry ) it bears almost no resemblance to the BASIC of which Dijkstra spoke .
I see more goto in C/C + + than in modern VB ( which does n't even need it for exceptions anymore ) , it cleanly supports procedural or OOP paradigms , and while it does suffer the " hides what the runtime is doing " somewhat ( garbage collection , etc .
) it is functionally near-identical to Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ is definitely still a very popular language, but it is losing ground.
While I doubt it will ever vanish entirely, I expect that within the next decade it will diminish until it is no longer the most common language for new development, let alone being more popular than the rest put together.
JIT-compiled languages like Java and C# are catching up very rapidly.
True embedded development will always be in a relatively low-level language, but things like phones are started to expect developers to use Java or C# or sometimes even Python.
Finally, don't forget JavaScript - not only is it also becoming a JIT-compiled language on most popular implementations (even IE, whenever 9 comes out), it's used on nearly every PC-like device (smartphones, Internet tablets, handheld gaming consoles, and of course desktops/laptops).As for C vs. C++, there are definitely some advantages to learning C. One of them is that learning the C++ way of doing things obscures some information from the inexperienced coder - e.g.
a lot of people seem to not realize that overloaded operators, such as  for cout, are actually procedure calls - and another is that C++ is a much more complex language to learn; C holds your hand less, but learning enough to read other peoples' C code, and write good C code for other people to read, takes less time than the equivalent learning for C++.As another poster pointed out, your knowledge of Pascal is completely obsolete.
In similar vein, I wonder if you've even glanced at a modern BASIC derivative; aside from the generally human-readable syntax, which admittedly constrains one's options slightly in how you write your code (no, for(;;) is not a valid way to write a "forever" or while (true) loop in VB, I'm sorry) it bears almost no resemblance to the BASIC of which Dijkstra spoke.
I see more goto in C/C++ than in modern VB (which doesn't even need it for exceptions anymore), it cleanly supports procedural or OOP paradigms, and while it does suffer the "hides what the runtime is doing" somewhat (garbage collection, etc.
) it is functionally near-identical to Java.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502972</id>
	<title>Re:Probably Java (Bleh)</title>
	<author>xiong.chiamiov</author>
	<datestamp>1268742420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That being said, pick up your local paper (or go to Seek - also bleh) and look at the proportion of jobs advertised these days that require Java.  It's quite significant.  That's the sort of thing that you should be looking at when making your decision.  Sure, you'll find a few that require any of your listed languages.  And sure, when these kids have finished UNI and want to work in IT (poor bastards) Java will be dead and buried, but there'll be a million and one "Legacy" systems lying around that use Java.</p></div><p>There will also be a shitton of "Java programmers" churned out by the current schooling system.  There's more than enough competition to go around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That being said , pick up your local paper ( or go to Seek - also bleh ) and look at the proportion of jobs advertised these days that require Java .
It 's quite significant .
That 's the sort of thing that you should be looking at when making your decision .
Sure , you 'll find a few that require any of your listed languages .
And sure , when these kids have finished UNI and want to work in IT ( poor bastards ) Java will be dead and buried , but there 'll be a million and one " Legacy " systems lying around that use Java.There will also be a shitton of " Java programmers " churned out by the current schooling system .
There 's more than enough competition to go around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That being said, pick up your local paper (or go to Seek - also bleh) and look at the proportion of jobs advertised these days that require Java.
It's quite significant.
That's the sort of thing that you should be looking at when making your decision.
Sure, you'll find a few that require any of your listed languages.
And sure, when these kids have finished UNI and want to work in IT (poor bastards) Java will be dead and buried, but there'll be a million and one "Legacy" systems lying around that use Java.There will also be a shitton of "Java programmers" churned out by the current schooling system.
There's more than enough competition to go around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114</id>
	<title>Perl !!</title>
	<author>QX-Mat</author>
	<datestamp>1268578380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perl is very simple to learn (check out "Robert's Perl Tutorial"). Perl allows the programmer to do what he wants - regardless of the style. There's even English.pm. Perl has many upsides ie: it's a powerful parser and indispensable toolkit... and highly embeddable. If there was ever a seed language to learn, it's Perl.</p><p>There's also the fact that Perl programmers are real unix men - and let's face it, you'd rather have real unix graduates than Ruby fannies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl is very simple to learn ( check out " Robert 's Perl Tutorial " ) .
Perl allows the programmer to do what he wants - regardless of the style .
There 's even English.pm .
Perl has many upsides ie : it 's a powerful parser and indispensable toolkit... and highly embeddable .
If there was ever a seed language to learn , it 's Perl.There 's also the fact that Perl programmers are real unix men - and let 's face it , you 'd rather have real unix graduates than Ruby fannies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perl is very simple to learn (check out "Robert's Perl Tutorial").
Perl allows the programmer to do what he wants - regardless of the style.
There's even English.pm.
Perl has many upsides ie: it's a powerful parser and indispensable toolkit... and highly embeddable.
If there was ever a seed language to learn, it's Perl.There's also the fact that Perl programmers are real unix men - and let's face it, you'd rather have real unix graduates than Ruby fannies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476922</id>
	<title>Python+shedskin</title>
	<author>correnos</author>
	<datestamp>1268577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Program it in python, then use shedskin if you find processing time starts to become an issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Program it in python , then use shedskin if you find processing time starts to become an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Program it in python, then use shedskin if you find processing time starts to become an issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478900</id>
	<title>How about iron python?</title>
	<author>kiddygrinder</author>
	<datestamp>1268685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if this is allowed but it has largely the same syntax as python plus the JIT compiler of mono/.net which i assume adds a fair chunk of speed.  they can take the knowledge of python and do real things with it after the contest too</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if this is allowed but it has largely the same syntax as python plus the JIT compiler of mono/.net which i assume adds a fair chunk of speed .
they can take the knowledge of python and do real things with it after the contest too</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if this is allowed but it has largely the same syntax as python plus the JIT compiler of mono/.net which i assume adds a fair chunk of speed.
they can take the knowledge of python and do real things with it after the contest too</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31490750</id>
	<title>The Rules and advice *for the question asked*</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1268663820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would appear that most people have responded with knee jerk "my language is better than yours" without actually reading the question, or the referenced material. Well done, all of you have just failed your job/contractors interview.</p><p>Short answer: Use C. Teach them it well. Teach them about data. Teach them about "restrict". Challenge them to win.</p><p>Long answer:</p><p>First observation: This is not a "programming" competition. Its a mathematical computing competition.</p><p>Second: There are winners and losers. Therefor not everyone gets 100\%. Either contestants write code that fails to do the job, or contestants write code that doesn't do it fast enough. Finally, in the event of a tie, the judges may select winners based on other criteria (than just pass or fail) and therefor they could conceivable use execution time as a decided. Do you know if they have done so?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Much of the judges&rsquo; input data will be far more taxing than the sample input given in the<br>question statements, and may push your program over the time limit. In this way, efficient<br>programs will be rewarded.</p></div><p>But:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Programs written in Visual Basic, Java, PHP or Python may run slower due to the overhead<br>of the associated interpreters and/or virtual machines. The judges may at their discretion<br>increase the time limits for these languages accordingly. Contestants should note that this<br>will not give these languages an advantage.</p></div><p>Well, that sounds completely and utterly arbitrary. When dealing with C-like java, which is what you will use for the problems you'll face in the competition, java is not much slower than C if its compiled, but it may not be. And VB.NET (NOT VB6) can be as fast as C. Python is always interpreted.</p><p>How will the judges increase the limits?</p><p>Its likely that the judges will they will benchmark their ideal solutions against each other. If the java version of the same solution in C takes 20\% extra, then that is the extra time they allow. So it should be safe to write in java or python if you want to.</p><p>But why?</p><p>I assume from your choice of competition that you are teaching students to go on to mathematical and scientific endeavours, not programming. This is an important difference. For example, until "recently", you were better of programming large data sets in FORTRAN, because C was unable to optimize properly thanks to pointer aliasing. However, the GNU C++ compiler that they are using will support the restrict keyword, so it can handle large data sets. Java, python, etc are languages for the web, not for scientists. (Ok, unless you are using java as a scripting language to drive something like Mathematica, but this is NOT what we are discussing here).</p><p>Teach them C. The competition specifies GCC/C++ 3.4.4 or later, which means you can use the \_\_restrict\_\_ keyword also, if they get the hang of writing algorithms.</p><p>Here are some more of the rules, for my peers whose internet connections cannot reach Australia.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Program Restrictions<br>
&nbsp; Students should write a computer program to solve each problem.<br>
&nbsp; Programs should read input only from the input file(s) specified in the question statements,<br>and should send output only to the output file(s) specified in the question statements. The<br>input and output files should be assumed to be in the current directory. Any output to<br>the screen will be ignored, and no input from the keyboard will be supplied.<br>
&nbsp; The format of the input file will be specified in each problem statement.<br>
&nbsp; The desired format of the output file will also be specified in each problem statement. If<br>you do not adhere to this output format, you may lose marks for your solution. The only<br>exception to this will be that judges will ignore any spaces at the beginning and end of each<br>output line.<br>
&nbsp; Each solution should be a single source file, written in one of the following languages:<br>&ndash; C<br>&ndash; C++<br>&ndash; Pascal<br>&ndash; Java<br>&ndash; Microsoft Visual Basic<br>&ndash; Visual Basic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET<br>&ndash; PHP<br>&ndash; Python<br>
&nbsp; Java solutions must be contained in a single class called Solution and must be run from the<br>routine<br>public static void main(String[] args)<br>within this Solution class.<br>
&nbsp; Visual Basic solutions must be run from the subroutine Main() and must not use any forms<br>(i.e., each solution must be a console application).<br>
&nbsp; Regarding the use of libraries or other external functions:<br>&ndash; C and C++ programmers may only #include headers from the standard C and C++<br>libraries. In particular, C++ programmers are allowed to use the string class and<br>container classes such as vector and list.<br>Australian Informatics Olympiad 2009 &mdash; Contest Rules 5<br>&ndash; Pascal programmers may not import any units except for Math, Strings and/or SysUtils.<br>&ndash; Java programmers may not use any classes aside from those in packages java.lang,<br>java.io and java.util.<br>Java programmers may not use dynamic loading of classes or any of the introspection<br>features of the language. For instance, routines such as Class.forName() or classes<br>such as java.lang.ClassLoader may not be used.<br>&ndash; PHP programmers may not use any functions provided by extensions or external libraries.<br>&ndash; Python programmers may not import any packages except for sys.<br>
&nbsp; Programs must be single-threaded and single-process. For instance, C and C++ programmers<br>may not call fork() or system(), and Java programmers may not use the class<br>java.lang.Thread or call Runtime.exec().<br>
&nbsp; Students may be disqualified if their programs:<br>&ndash; attempt to read from or write to any files other than those specified in the problem<br>statements;<br>&ndash; attempt to make network connections;<br>&ndash; contain any malicious code designed to harm or alter the judges&rsquo; computer(s);<br>&ndash; otherwise attempt to subvert the judging system.<br>
&nbsp; The source code for each solution must not exceed 40,000 bytes in size.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would appear that most people have responded with knee jerk " my language is better than yours " without actually reading the question , or the referenced material .
Well done , all of you have just failed your job/contractors interview.Short answer : Use C. Teach them it well .
Teach them about data .
Teach them about " restrict " .
Challenge them to win.Long answer : First observation : This is not a " programming " competition .
Its a mathematical computing competition.Second : There are winners and losers .
Therefor not everyone gets 100 \ % .
Either contestants write code that fails to do the job , or contestants write code that does n't do it fast enough .
Finally , in the event of a tie , the judges may select winners based on other criteria ( than just pass or fail ) and therefor they could conceivable use execution time as a decided .
Do you know if they have done so ?
Much of the judges    input data will be far more taxing than the sample input given in thequestion statements , and may push your program over the time limit .
In this way , efficientprograms will be rewarded.But : Programs written in Visual Basic , Java , PHP or Python may run slower due to the overheadof the associated interpreters and/or virtual machines .
The judges may at their discretionincrease the time limits for these languages accordingly .
Contestants should note that thiswill not give these languages an advantage.Well , that sounds completely and utterly arbitrary .
When dealing with C-like java , which is what you will use for the problems you 'll face in the competition , java is not much slower than C if its compiled , but it may not be .
And VB.NET ( NOT VB6 ) can be as fast as C. Python is always interpreted.How will the judges increase the limits ? Its likely that the judges will they will benchmark their ideal solutions against each other .
If the java version of the same solution in C takes 20 \ % extra , then that is the extra time they allow .
So it should be safe to write in java or python if you want to.But why ? I assume from your choice of competition that you are teaching students to go on to mathematical and scientific endeavours , not programming .
This is an important difference .
For example , until " recently " , you were better of programming large data sets in FORTRAN , because C was unable to optimize properly thanks to pointer aliasing .
However , the GNU C + + compiler that they are using will support the restrict keyword , so it can handle large data sets .
Java , python , etc are languages for the web , not for scientists .
( Ok , unless you are using java as a scripting language to drive something like Mathematica , but this is NOT what we are discussing here ) .Teach them C. The competition specifies GCC/C + + 3.4.4 or later , which means you can use the \ _ \ _restrict \ _ \ _ keyword also , if they get the hang of writing algorithms.Here are some more of the rules , for my peers whose internet connections can not reach Australia.Program Restrictions   Students should write a computer program to solve each problem .
  Programs should read input only from the input file ( s ) specified in the question statements,and should send output only to the output file ( s ) specified in the question statements .
Theinput and output files should be assumed to be in the current directory .
Any output tothe screen will be ignored , and no input from the keyboard will be supplied .
  The format of the input file will be specified in each problem statement .
  The desired format of the output file will also be specified in each problem statement .
Ifyou do not adhere to this output format , you may lose marks for your solution .
The onlyexception to this will be that judges will ignore any spaces at the beginning and end of eachoutput line .
  Each solution should be a single source file , written in one of the following languages :    C    C + +    Pascal    Java    Microsoft Visual Basic    Visual Basic .NET    PHP    Python   Java solutions must be contained in a single class called Solution and must be run from theroutinepublic static void main ( String [ ] args ) within this Solution class .
  Visual Basic solutions must be run from the subroutine Main ( ) and must not use any forms ( i.e. , each solution must be a console application ) .
  Regarding the use of libraries or other external functions :    C and C + + programmers may only # include headers from the standard C and C + + libraries .
In particular , C + + programmers are allowed to use the string class andcontainer classes such as vector and list.Australian Informatics Olympiad 2009    Contest Rules 5    Pascal programmers may not import any units except for Math , Strings and/or SysUtils.    Java programmers may not use any classes aside from those in packages java.lang,java.io and java.util.Java programmers may not use dynamic loading of classes or any of the introspectionfeatures of the language .
For instance , routines such as Class.forName ( ) or classessuch as java.lang.ClassLoader may not be used.    PHP programmers may not use any functions provided by extensions or external libraries.    Python programmers may not import any packages except for sys .
  Programs must be single-threaded and single-process .
For instance , C and C + + programmersmay not call fork ( ) or system ( ) , and Java programmers may not use the classjava.lang.Thread or call Runtime.exec ( ) .
  Students may be disqualified if their programs :    attempt to read from or write to any files other than those specified in the problemstatements ;    attempt to make network connections ;    contain any malicious code designed to harm or alter the judges    computer ( s ) ;    otherwise attempt to subvert the judging system .
  The source code for each solution must not exceed 40,000 bytes in size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would appear that most people have responded with knee jerk "my language is better than yours" without actually reading the question, or the referenced material.
Well done, all of you have just failed your job/contractors interview.Short answer: Use C. Teach them it well.
Teach them about data.
Teach them about "restrict".
Challenge them to win.Long answer:First observation: This is not a "programming" competition.
Its a mathematical computing competition.Second: There are winners and losers.
Therefor not everyone gets 100\%.
Either contestants write code that fails to do the job, or contestants write code that doesn't do it fast enough.
Finally, in the event of a tie, the judges may select winners based on other criteria (than just pass or fail) and therefor they could conceivable use execution time as a decided.
Do you know if they have done so?
Much of the judges’ input data will be far more taxing than the sample input given in thequestion statements, and may push your program over the time limit.
In this way, efficientprograms will be rewarded.But: Programs written in Visual Basic, Java, PHP or Python may run slower due to the overheadof the associated interpreters and/or virtual machines.
The judges may at their discretionincrease the time limits for these languages accordingly.
Contestants should note that thiswill not give these languages an advantage.Well, that sounds completely and utterly arbitrary.
When dealing with C-like java, which is what you will use for the problems you'll face in the competition, java is not much slower than C if its compiled, but it may not be.
And VB.NET (NOT VB6) can be as fast as C. Python is always interpreted.How will the judges increase the limits?Its likely that the judges will they will benchmark their ideal solutions against each other.
If the java version of the same solution in C takes 20\% extra, then that is the extra time they allow.
So it should be safe to write in java or python if you want to.But why?I assume from your choice of competition that you are teaching students to go on to mathematical and scientific endeavours, not programming.
This is an important difference.
For example, until "recently", you were better of programming large data sets in FORTRAN, because C was unable to optimize properly thanks to pointer aliasing.
However, the GNU C++ compiler that they are using will support the restrict keyword, so it can handle large data sets.
Java, python, etc are languages for the web, not for scientists.
(Ok, unless you are using java as a scripting language to drive something like Mathematica, but this is NOT what we are discussing here).Teach them C. The competition specifies GCC/C++ 3.4.4 or later, which means you can use the \_\_restrict\_\_ keyword also, if they get the hang of writing algorithms.Here are some more of the rules, for my peers whose internet connections cannot reach Australia.Program Restrictions
  Students should write a computer program to solve each problem.
  Programs should read input only from the input file(s) specified in the question statements,and should send output only to the output file(s) specified in the question statements.
Theinput and output files should be assumed to be in the current directory.
Any output tothe screen will be ignored, and no input from the keyboard will be supplied.
  The format of the input file will be specified in each problem statement.
  The desired format of the output file will also be specified in each problem statement.
Ifyou do not adhere to this output format, you may lose marks for your solution.
The onlyexception to this will be that judges will ignore any spaces at the beginning and end of eachoutput line.
  Each solution should be a single source file, written in one of the following languages:– C– C++– Pascal– Java– Microsoft Visual Basic– Visual Basic .NET– PHP– Python
  Java solutions must be contained in a single class called Solution and must be run from theroutinepublic static void main(String[] args)within this Solution class.
  Visual Basic solutions must be run from the subroutine Main() and must not use any forms(i.e., each solution must be a console application).
  Regarding the use of libraries or other external functions:– C and C++ programmers may only #include headers from the standard C and C++libraries.
In particular, C++ programmers are allowed to use the string class andcontainer classes such as vector and list.Australian Informatics Olympiad 2009 — Contest Rules 5– Pascal programmers may not import any units except for Math, Strings and/or SysUtils.– Java programmers may not use any classes aside from those in packages java.lang,java.io and java.util.Java programmers may not use dynamic loading of classes or any of the introspectionfeatures of the language.
For instance, routines such as Class.forName() or classessuch as java.lang.ClassLoader may not be used.– PHP programmers may not use any functions provided by extensions or external libraries.– Python programmers may not import any packages except for sys.
  Programs must be single-threaded and single-process.
For instance, C and C++ programmersmay not call fork() or system(), and Java programmers may not use the classjava.lang.Thread or call Runtime.exec().
  Students may be disqualified if their programs:– attempt to read from or write to any files other than those specified in the problemstatements;– attempt to make network connections;– contain any malicious code designed to harm or alter the judges’ computer(s);– otherwise attempt to subvert the judging system.
  The source code for each solution must not exceed 40,000 bytes in size.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481568</id>
	<title>Re:Perl !!</title>
	<author>lucian1900</author>
	<datestamp>1268666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you didn't just suggest Perl...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you did n't just suggest Perl.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you didn't just suggest Perl...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478276</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268589240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a 4 hour programming contest, not a real-time cell phone billing system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a 4 hour programming contest , not a real-time cell phone billing system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a 4 hour programming contest, not a real-time cell phone billing system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31543342</id>
	<title>Re:Teach them C++</title>
	<author>HeavensTrash</author>
	<datestamp>1268991240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...I wouldn't use PHP, since it makes it hard to execute (you need to run a webserver with PHP support and browse to it)...</p></div><p>Since when?</p><p>#!/usr/local/bin/php<br>&lt;?<br>echo 'Hello World';</p><p>Yes, PHP command-line does exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I would n't use PHP , since it makes it hard to execute ( you need to run a webserver with PHP support and browse to it ) ...Since when ? # ! /usr/local/bin/phpecho 'Hello World ' ; Yes , PHP command-line does exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...I wouldn't use PHP, since it makes it hard to execute (you need to run a webserver with PHP support and browse to it)...Since when?#!/usr/local/bin/phpecho 'Hello World';Yes, PHP command-line does exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476830</id>
	<title>If Python is an allowed choice then...</title>
	<author>Frequency Domain</author>
	<datestamp>1268576520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any CPU limits should be generous enough to accommodate correct solutions in any of the permissible languages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any CPU limits should be generous enough to accommodate correct solutions in any of the permissible languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any CPU limits should be generous enough to accommodate correct solutions in any of the permissible languages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478878</id>
	<title>Re:Pascal</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1268685300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics. It has strong and static typing, making many errors very easy to catch at compile time. The case for Java is similar but the syntax and semantics are a bit more complicated.''</p><p>"A bit more complicated"? Java has grown to where any real-world program involves so many concepts that I wouldn't burden a beginning programmer with that. It's widely used and seems to be here to stay, so if the contest allows multiple languages, I think Java should certainly be one of them, but I sure hope it wouldn't be the only language allowed. It's just too complex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics .
It has strong and static typing , making many errors very easy to catch at compile time .
The case for Java is similar but the syntax and semantics are a bit more complicated .
' ' " A bit more complicated " ?
Java has grown to where any real-world program involves so many concepts that I would n't burden a beginning programmer with that .
It 's widely used and seems to be here to stay , so if the contest allows multiple languages , I think Java should certainly be one of them , but I sure hope it would n't be the only language allowed .
It 's just too complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics.
It has strong and static typing, making many errors very easy to catch at compile time.
The case for Java is similar but the syntax and semantics are a bit more complicated.
''"A bit more complicated"?
Java has grown to where any real-world program involves so many concepts that I wouldn't burden a beginning programmer with that.
It's widely used and seems to be here to stay, so if the contest allows multiple languages, I think Java should certainly be one of them, but I sure hope it wouldn't be the only language allowed.
It's just too complex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476840</id>
	<title>No option of Fortran?</title>
	<author>zebadee</author>
	<datestamp>1268576580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The forgotten language.......
  For numerical stuff it still works great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The forgotten language...... . For numerical stuff it still works great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The forgotten language.......
  For numerical stuff it still works great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31484448</id>
	<title>Heed these words of wisdom...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268678700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Write it in C"<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHosLhPEN3k" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHosLhPEN3k</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Write it in C " http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = XHosLhPEN3k [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Write it in C"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHosLhPEN3k [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477980</id>
	<title>C/C++</title>
	<author>mmmmbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1268585880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally, when teaching kids how to program, you should not teach them a "simple" language.  You need to teach them the core concepts of programming, and there's no language better than C/C++ for that.  First you teach them basic concepts in C, then you add OO using C++.  Once they understand the fundamentals as used in C++, they will be able to convert to any of the other languages fairly easily.  On the other hand, if they start off with an easier, but - for lack of a better term - less precise, language, they will have a much harder time ever transferring to other languages.  C++ is the best teaching language for exactly the reason why many people don't like to program with it - it makes you understand the differences in the concepts you are using.</p><p>I can understand the desire to simplify things for the sake of the competition, and maybe for some of the students you might need to, but I think you would be doing them a disservice in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally , when teaching kids how to program , you should not teach them a " simple " language .
You need to teach them the core concepts of programming , and there 's no language better than C/C + + for that .
First you teach them basic concepts in C , then you add OO using C + + .
Once they understand the fundamentals as used in C + + , they will be able to convert to any of the other languages fairly easily .
On the other hand , if they start off with an easier , but - for lack of a better term - less precise , language , they will have a much harder time ever transferring to other languages .
C + + is the best teaching language for exactly the reason why many people do n't like to program with it - it makes you understand the differences in the concepts you are using.I can understand the desire to simplify things for the sake of the competition , and maybe for some of the students you might need to , but I think you would be doing them a disservice in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally, when teaching kids how to program, you should not teach them a "simple" language.
You need to teach them the core concepts of programming, and there's no language better than C/C++ for that.
First you teach them basic concepts in C, then you add OO using C++.
Once they understand the fundamentals as used in C++, they will be able to convert to any of the other languages fairly easily.
On the other hand, if they start off with an easier, but - for lack of a better term - less precise, language, they will have a much harder time ever transferring to other languages.
C++ is the best teaching language for exactly the reason why many people don't like to program with it - it makes you understand the differences in the concepts you are using.I can understand the desire to simplify things for the sake of the competition, and maybe for some of the students you might need to, but I think you would be doing them a disservice in the long run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479634</id>
	<title>Beginners: teach concepts, not languages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268650320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably for these beginners, you're teaching programming concepts: symbolic logic, input, output etc.</p><p>So while you could dive right into programming languages as we know them, or give them something like Turtle/Logo</p><p>My kids' primary school uses <a href="http://scratch.mit.edu/" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">Scratch</a> [mit.edu] for this. Of course, you could just give 'em actual Logo via <a href="http://edu.kde.org/kturtle/" title="kde.org" rel="nofollow">KTurtle</a> [kde.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably for these beginners , you 're teaching programming concepts : symbolic logic , input , output etc.So while you could dive right into programming languages as we know them , or give them something like Turtle/LogoMy kids ' primary school uses Scratch [ mit.edu ] for this .
Of course , you could just give 'em actual Logo via KTurtle [ kde.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably for these beginners, you're teaching programming concepts: symbolic logic, input, output etc.So while you could dive right into programming languages as we know them, or give them something like Turtle/LogoMy kids' primary school uses Scratch [mit.edu] for this.
Of course, you could just give 'em actual Logo via KTurtle [kde.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478056</id>
	<title>Re:Boy you're going to get lots of replies</title>
	<author>JMZero</author>
	<datestamp>1268586420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For industry/career use, VB.net is perhaps not a top choice - but it is not altogether unused.  And, in any case, the important concepts learned in this kind of contest will be language independent.</p><p>And, yeah, VB is really easy to teach: great IDE, magically good edit-and-continue, simple debugging options, simple syntax, no worries about object lifetimes, intuitive handling/conversion of strings and integers, and a good set of generic lists, dictionaries, hashtables, etc that are reasonably easy to use...</p><p>(Of course, there's still a few real "gotchas" that are likely to come up in a programming competition: no bignums, goofy array syntax, automatic type conversion with division, no short circuiting by default, sometimes unintuitive operator precedence... but nothing that can't be gotten around or debugged through relatively simply).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For industry/career use , VB.net is perhaps not a top choice - but it is not altogether unused .
And , in any case , the important concepts learned in this kind of contest will be language independent.And , yeah , VB is really easy to teach : great IDE , magically good edit-and-continue , simple debugging options , simple syntax , no worries about object lifetimes , intuitive handling/conversion of strings and integers , and a good set of generic lists , dictionaries , hashtables , etc that are reasonably easy to use... ( Of course , there 's still a few real " gotchas " that are likely to come up in a programming competition : no bignums , goofy array syntax , automatic type conversion with division , no short circuiting by default , sometimes unintuitive operator precedence... but nothing that ca n't be gotten around or debugged through relatively simply ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For industry/career use, VB.net is perhaps not a top choice - but it is not altogether unused.
And, in any case, the important concepts learned in this kind of contest will be language independent.And, yeah, VB is really easy to teach: great IDE, magically good edit-and-continue, simple debugging options, simple syntax, no worries about object lifetimes, intuitive handling/conversion of strings and integers, and a good set of generic lists, dictionaries, hashtables, etc that are reasonably easy to use...(Of course, there's still a few real "gotchas" that are likely to come up in a programming competition: no bignums, goofy array syntax, automatic type conversion with division, no short circuiting by default, sometimes unintuitive operator precedence... but nothing that can't be gotten around or debugged through relatively simply).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670</id>
	<title>Many good choices</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1268575560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't want a test that favors kids who have studied that particular language in the past.  I suggest the Turing-complete language LaTeX.  It's the only way to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't want a test that favors kids who have studied that particular language in the past .
I suggest the Turing-complete language LaTeX .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't want a test that favors kids who have studied that particular language in the past.
I suggest the Turing-complete language LaTeX.
It's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477068</id>
	<title>How about the simplest of languages?...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268578020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brainfuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brainfuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brainfuck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479386</id>
	<title>Re:Pascal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm actually somewhat surprised that of the (wide variety of) languages that can run on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET / Mono, the only major one they're missing is the language that was built for the framework. C# is basically Java with more C-like syntax (namespaces, the use of : for inheritance, etc.), fewer restrictions on what you can do (stack-allocated objects, unsigned types, et.c), fewer stupid restrictions (multiple public classes per file allowed, or one class across multiple files, no requirements of classname = filename or directory structure = namespace structure), fewer legacy hacks (generics, I'm looking at you), and the ability to use pointers if you *REALLY* want to.</p><p>VB.NET is typesafe and statically typed (I think you could force VB6 to do the same, not that it matters), and its syntax is, well, BASIC. Love it or hate it, it's undeniably simple and quick to pick up. Although technically proprietary, Mono has a pretty good implementation of the language; aside from a few intrinsic functions carried over from legacy VB (most of which have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/Mono library equivalents) it's not that hard to compile or run once you've got a working Common Language Runtime.</p><p>For Python, I suppose they probably want the reference implementation (CPython) but IronPython is also quite a good implementation, and has become fairly popular. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the 3rd-most common CLR language after C# and VB, although C++ might have it beat there.</p><p>C++ is not a language I would suggest starting on, although it's a valuable one to know. It also makes for pretty seamless interaction between managed and unmanaged code, if you want to link it into the CLR... but for a project like this it's not the right choice, I think. Too much weird syntax, too much potential for obscure error messages, and while you *can* avoid the issue of manual memory management I would not choose C++ as my language of choice if I'm working entirely with memory-managed code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm actually somewhat surprised that of the ( wide variety of ) languages that can run on .NET / Mono , the only major one they 're missing is the language that was built for the framework .
C # is basically Java with more C-like syntax ( namespaces , the use of : for inheritance , etc .
) , fewer restrictions on what you can do ( stack-allocated objects , unsigned types , et.c ) , fewer stupid restrictions ( multiple public classes per file allowed , or one class across multiple files , no requirements of classname = filename or directory structure = namespace structure ) , fewer legacy hacks ( generics , I 'm looking at you ) , and the ability to use pointers if you * REALLY * want to.VB.NET is typesafe and statically typed ( I think you could force VB6 to do the same , not that it matters ) , and its syntax is , well , BASIC .
Love it or hate it , it 's undeniably simple and quick to pick up .
Although technically proprietary , Mono has a pretty good implementation of the language ; aside from a few intrinsic functions carried over from legacy VB ( most of which have .NET/Mono library equivalents ) it 's not that hard to compile or run once you 've got a working Common Language Runtime.For Python , I suppose they probably want the reference implementation ( CPython ) but IronPython is also quite a good implementation , and has become fairly popular .
I would n't be surprised if it 's the 3rd-most common CLR language after C # and VB , although C + + might have it beat there.C + + is not a language I would suggest starting on , although it 's a valuable one to know .
It also makes for pretty seamless interaction between managed and unmanaged code , if you want to link it into the CLR... but for a project like this it 's not the right choice , I think .
Too much weird syntax , too much potential for obscure error messages , and while you * can * avoid the issue of manual memory management I would not choose C + + as my language of choice if I 'm working entirely with memory-managed code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm actually somewhat surprised that of the (wide variety of) languages that can run on .NET / Mono, the only major one they're missing is the language that was built for the framework.
C# is basically Java with more C-like syntax (namespaces, the use of : for inheritance, etc.
), fewer restrictions on what you can do (stack-allocated objects, unsigned types, et.c), fewer stupid restrictions (multiple public classes per file allowed, or one class across multiple files, no requirements of classname = filename or directory structure = namespace structure), fewer legacy hacks (generics, I'm looking at you), and the ability to use pointers if you *REALLY* want to.VB.NET is typesafe and statically typed (I think you could force VB6 to do the same, not that it matters), and its syntax is, well, BASIC.
Love it or hate it, it's undeniably simple and quick to pick up.
Although technically proprietary, Mono has a pretty good implementation of the language; aside from a few intrinsic functions carried over from legacy VB (most of which have .NET/Mono library equivalents) it's not that hard to compile or run once you've got a working Common Language Runtime.For Python, I suppose they probably want the reference implementation (CPython) but IronPython is also quite a good implementation, and has become fairly popular.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's the 3rd-most common CLR language after C# and VB, although C++ might have it beat there.C++ is not a language I would suggest starting on, although it's a valuable one to know.
It also makes for pretty seamless interaction between managed and unmanaged code, if you want to link it into the CLR... but for a project like this it's not the right choice, I think.
Too much weird syntax, too much potential for obscure error messages, and while you *can* avoid the issue of manual memory management I would not choose C++ as my language of choice if I'm working entirely with memory-managed code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31522558</id>
	<title>I'd go Java *ducks*</title>
	<author>Endophage</author>
	<datestamp>1268925900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Referencing a post here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a while ago, benchmarks across most of the available languages show java running with the server VM (selected by passing the -server option on the command line) is faster than all languages other than C and Clean.  Given that your students will probably be able to solve any problems set using only single class of completely static java so you don't necessarily have to teach them OO programming I think Java will provide them with much more power for much less pain than C or C++, is just better than VB full stop and is significantly faster than Python or PHP (which is incidentally the slowest language of those benchmarked). <br> <br>

I'd also point out that Java has some of the best editors (Eclipse, Netbeans), that take the pain out of debugging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Referencing a post here on / .
a while ago , benchmarks across most of the available languages show java running with the server VM ( selected by passing the -server option on the command line ) is faster than all languages other than C and Clean .
Given that your students will probably be able to solve any problems set using only single class of completely static java so you do n't necessarily have to teach them OO programming I think Java will provide them with much more power for much less pain than C or C + + , is just better than VB full stop and is significantly faster than Python or PHP ( which is incidentally the slowest language of those benchmarked ) .
I 'd also point out that Java has some of the best editors ( Eclipse , Netbeans ) , that take the pain out of debugging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Referencing a post here on /.
a while ago, benchmarks across most of the available languages show java running with the server VM (selected by passing the -server option on the command line) is faster than all languages other than C and Clean.
Given that your students will probably be able to solve any problems set using only single class of completely static java so you don't necessarily have to teach them OO programming I think Java will provide them with much more power for much less pain than C or C++, is just better than VB full stop and is significantly faster than Python or PHP (which is incidentally the slowest language of those benchmarked).
I'd also point out that Java has some of the best editors (Eclipse, Netbeans), that take the pain out of debugging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478802</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1268684040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Python doesn't have a built-in JIT??''</p><p>Does have. Just that JIT compilation doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be winning speed contests.</p><p>``What's with all the Perl hate, then?''</p><p>What's that got to do with anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Python does n't have a built-in JIT ? ?
''Does have .
Just that JIT compilation does n't necessarily mean you are going to be winning speed contests. ` ` What 's with all the Perl hate , then ?
''What 's that got to do with anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Python doesn't have a built-in JIT??
''Does have.
Just that JIT compilation doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be winning speed contests.``What's with all the Perl hate, then?
''What's that got to do with anything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477760</id>
	<title>Re:INTERCAL</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1268584020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>PLEASE DO FORGET #1<br>GIVE UP</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PLEASE DO FORGET # 1GIVE UP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PLEASE DO FORGET #1GIVE UP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479462</id>
	<title>Re:Go With Your Gut</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1268648640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would stay away from C/C++.  In the hands of novices in a timed activity, I would wager it would be more trouble than it's worth.</p></div><p>Who knows? There might be a prize for getting the biggest memory leak.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would stay away from C/C + + .
In the hands of novices in a timed activity , I would wager it would be more trouble than it 's worth.Who knows ?
There might be a prize for getting the biggest memory leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would stay away from C/C++.
In the hands of novices in a timed activity, I would wager it would be more trouble than it's worth.Who knows?
There might be a prize for getting the biggest memory leak.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31486232</id>
	<title>Re:There's C then there's C written by newbies</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1268685120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You have to be a retard to leak memory in C.</p></div></blockquote><p>This only confirms my suspicion that the software industry is full of retards, and they <b>all</b> program in C.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to be a retard to leak memory in C.This only confirms my suspicion that the software industry is full of retards , and they all program in C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to be a retard to leak memory in C.This only confirms my suspicion that the software industry is full of retards, and they all program in C.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479056</id>
	<title>Re:Python will give you th least problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pray tell me how a modern Pascal dialect (as used by Free Pascal Compiler for example) is "limitad".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pray tell me how a modern Pascal dialect ( as used by Free Pascal Compiler for example ) is " limitad " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pray tell me how a modern Pascal dialect (as used by Free Pascal Compiler for example) is "limitad".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478210</id>
	<title>PHP</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268588520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree about C.  Nasty for novices, and that's because of pointers.  For instance, does *n++ mean (*n)++ or *(n++)?

</p><p>But Pascal?  No, I don't agree.  Pascal hasn't been an important language since the 1980s, C still is.  The C syntax is superior.  Efficient syntax is important in a programming contest.  You can type "{" and "}" faster than "begin" and "end" and "If () { }" faster than "if then begin end".  The curly braces are less clutter on the screen, and better for those whose first language is not English.  Passing by reference in Pascal is lame, what with having to add "var" to every such parameter.  C isn't great either, with the pointer syntax for that, and then having to pollute the function body with '*' characters.  I like C++ a bit better there, with the '&amp;' in front of the parameter.

</p><p>I would pick C++ ahead of C, not for the OOP, but for things like '&amp;' and not having to use the keyword "struct" as much as you have to in C, or, rather, not having to do that boilerplate typedef trick so you don't have to type in "struct" all the time.  I'd pick something with C syntax ahead of C++, in this case, Java or PHP.  Nice features of Java are automatic garbage collection and not having to sprinkle asterisks everywhere, but Java has some other features that are a pain, particularly this business of having to put each class in a separate file, and the rather clunky "classpath" environment variable.  PHP on the other hand is another of those languages that insists on a funny symbol in front of every variable reference, a common tradeoff for not having to explicitly declare every variable.  Still, being able to bang out a quick script is very nice, so I'd go with PHP over Java.

</p><p>As this is a programming contest, I'm putting a big premium on minimum amount of typing and display space.  Quickly banging out code is everything, and if it's dirty, so be it.  Having to flip back and forth between multiple files can be a real time killer.  Boilerplate such as "main" in C/C++ and the "begin" and "end." of Pascal is also bad, just more lines of crap you have to shove into your code and scroll past before you can get to the business of banging out a solution.  So, a scripting language seems best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree about C. Nasty for novices , and that 's because of pointers .
For instance , does * n + + mean ( * n ) + + or * ( n + + ) ?
But Pascal ?
No , I do n't agree .
Pascal has n't been an important language since the 1980s , C still is .
The C syntax is superior .
Efficient syntax is important in a programming contest .
You can type " { " and " } " faster than " begin " and " end " and " If ( ) { } " faster than " if then begin end " .
The curly braces are less clutter on the screen , and better for those whose first language is not English .
Passing by reference in Pascal is lame , what with having to add " var " to every such parameter .
C is n't great either , with the pointer syntax for that , and then having to pollute the function body with ' * ' characters .
I like C + + a bit better there , with the '&amp; ' in front of the parameter .
I would pick C + + ahead of C , not for the OOP , but for things like '&amp; ' and not having to use the keyword " struct " as much as you have to in C , or , rather , not having to do that boilerplate typedef trick so you do n't have to type in " struct " all the time .
I 'd pick something with C syntax ahead of C + + , in this case , Java or PHP .
Nice features of Java are automatic garbage collection and not having to sprinkle asterisks everywhere , but Java has some other features that are a pain , particularly this business of having to put each class in a separate file , and the rather clunky " classpath " environment variable .
PHP on the other hand is another of those languages that insists on a funny symbol in front of every variable reference , a common tradeoff for not having to explicitly declare every variable .
Still , being able to bang out a quick script is very nice , so I 'd go with PHP over Java .
As this is a programming contest , I 'm putting a big premium on minimum amount of typing and display space .
Quickly banging out code is everything , and if it 's dirty , so be it .
Having to flip back and forth between multiple files can be a real time killer .
Boilerplate such as " main " in C/C + + and the " begin " and " end .
" of Pascal is also bad , just more lines of crap you have to shove into your code and scroll past before you can get to the business of banging out a solution .
So , a scripting language seems best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree about C.  Nasty for novices, and that's because of pointers.
For instance, does *n++ mean (*n)++ or *(n++)?
But Pascal?
No, I don't agree.
Pascal hasn't been an important language since the 1980s, C still is.
The C syntax is superior.
Efficient syntax is important in a programming contest.
You can type "{" and "}" faster than "begin" and "end" and "If () { }" faster than "if then begin end".
The curly braces are less clutter on the screen, and better for those whose first language is not English.
Passing by reference in Pascal is lame, what with having to add "var" to every such parameter.
C isn't great either, with the pointer syntax for that, and then having to pollute the function body with '*' characters.
I like C++ a bit better there, with the '&amp;' in front of the parameter.
I would pick C++ ahead of C, not for the OOP, but for things like '&amp;' and not having to use the keyword "struct" as much as you have to in C, or, rather, not having to do that boilerplate typedef trick so you don't have to type in "struct" all the time.
I'd pick something with C syntax ahead of C++, in this case, Java or PHP.
Nice features of Java are automatic garbage collection and not having to sprinkle asterisks everywhere, but Java has some other features that are a pain, particularly this business of having to put each class in a separate file, and the rather clunky "classpath" environment variable.
PHP on the other hand is another of those languages that insists on a funny symbol in front of every variable reference, a common tradeoff for not having to explicitly declare every variable.
Still, being able to bang out a quick script is very nice, so I'd go with PHP over Java.
As this is a programming contest, I'm putting a big premium on minimum amount of typing and display space.
Quickly banging out code is everything, and if it's dirty, so be it.
Having to flip back and forth between multiple files can be a real time killer.
Boilerplate such as "main" in C/C++ and the "begin" and "end.
" of Pascal is also bad, just more lines of crap you have to shove into your code and scroll past before you can get to the business of banging out a solution.
So, a scripting language seems best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31541744</id>
	<title>Re:Pascal</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1269027480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics. It has strong and static typing, making many errors very easy to catch at compile time.</p></div></blockquote><p>
It's also useless in the real world.  I haven't seen Pascal since 1996 (VaxPascal, which my C code was to replace).</p><blockquote><div><p>C is terrible to teach, they'll have to deal with pointers all the time. Reading something from input? Pointers. Passing by reference? Pointers. Strings? Pointers.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yes, it's pointers. But correctly taught they aren't too hard to understand.
I don't believe C is a good beginner language, but the concept of pointers is not the reason</p><blockquote><div><p>Same for C++.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That makes me think you haven't seen C++ since about the time I saw VaxPascal.
You can get a long way without pointers, if you stay away from the C compatibility parts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics .
It has strong and static typing , making many errors very easy to catch at compile time .
It 's also useless in the real world .
I have n't seen Pascal since 1996 ( VaxPascal , which my C code was to replace ) .C is terrible to teach , they 'll have to deal with pointers all the time .
Reading something from input ?
Pointers. Passing by reference ?
Pointers. Strings ?
Pointers . Yes , it 's pointers .
But correctly taught they are n't too hard to understand .
I do n't believe C is a good beginner language , but the concept of pointers is not the reasonSame for C + + .
That makes me think you have n't seen C + + since about the time I saw VaxPascal .
You can get a long way without pointers , if you stay away from the C compatibility parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pascal has a is very simple and clear syntax and semantics.
It has strong and static typing, making many errors very easy to catch at compile time.
It's also useless in the real world.
I haven't seen Pascal since 1996 (VaxPascal, which my C code was to replace).C is terrible to teach, they'll have to deal with pointers all the time.
Reading something from input?
Pointers. Passing by reference?
Pointers. Strings?
Pointers.
Yes, it's pointers.
But correctly taught they aren't too hard to understand.
I don't believe C is a good beginner language, but the concept of pointers is not the reasonSame for C++.
That makes me think you haven't seen C++ since about the time I saw VaxPascal.
You can get a long way without pointers, if you stay away from the C compatibility parts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481832</id>
	<title>Individualize if possible</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268667360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a simplistic logic flow*; use and modify as desired.</p><p>If the student is a complete beginner || lousy coder, or knows programming in a language other than the contest requirements, or he/she knows Visual Basic, start with a mature, stable language that has reasonably consistent syntax. Among the choices available, there's simply no contest-- pick Python**.</p><p>Else, if the student is reasonably versed in one of the languages (other than VB), tutor the student in various algorithms and data structures using that language. Observe the code he/she writes and try to identify bad habits and suggest workarounds, etc.</p><p>Else (meaning you don't have the time to do the above, which is understandable), give them all a crash course in Python and drill them regularly.</p><p>*  NOT pseudocode. Don't even try to compile this. I can see the programming professors cringing at the first conditional clause already.<br>** I'm a Ruby coder myself, so if I had my druthers, I'd pick Ruby. But rules are rules...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a simplistic logic flow * ; use and modify as desired.If the student is a complete beginner | | lousy coder , or knows programming in a language other than the contest requirements , or he/she knows Visual Basic , start with a mature , stable language that has reasonably consistent syntax .
Among the choices available , there 's simply no contest-- pick Python * * .Else , if the student is reasonably versed in one of the languages ( other than VB ) , tutor the student in various algorithms and data structures using that language .
Observe the code he/she writes and try to identify bad habits and suggest workarounds , etc.Else ( meaning you do n't have the time to do the above , which is understandable ) , give them all a crash course in Python and drill them regularly .
* NOT pseudocode .
Do n't even try to compile this .
I can see the programming professors cringing at the first conditional clause already .
* * I 'm a Ruby coder myself , so if I had my druthers , I 'd pick Ruby .
But rules are rules.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a simplistic logic flow*; use and modify as desired.If the student is a complete beginner || lousy coder, or knows programming in a language other than the contest requirements, or he/she knows Visual Basic, start with a mature, stable language that has reasonably consistent syntax.
Among the choices available, there's simply no contest-- pick Python**.Else, if the student is reasonably versed in one of the languages (other than VB), tutor the student in various algorithms and data structures using that language.
Observe the code he/she writes and try to identify bad habits and suggest workarounds, etc.Else (meaning you don't have the time to do the above, which is understandable), give them all a crash course in Python and drill them regularly.
*  NOT pseudocode.
Don't even try to compile this.
I can see the programming professors cringing at the first conditional clause already.
** I'm a Ruby coder myself, so if I had my druthers, I'd pick Ruby.
But rules are rules...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476908</id>
	<title>Ask them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268577000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Explain the situation to your students; give them the options available with pros and cons for each; and let them decide for themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain the situation to your students ; give them the options available with pros and cons for each ; and let them decide for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain the situation to your students; give them the options available with pros and cons for each; and let them decide for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477230</id>
	<title>Re:Strange limitation</title>
	<author>Charan</author>
	<datestamp>1268579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the CPU time limit would be generous enough that it won't matter if your programming language is interpreted 10x slower than hand-tuned assembly.  They want to make sure you aren't using a brute-force O(n^3) algorithm when a linear one would work well enough.</p><p>Plus, the judges need a rule to allow them to terminate programs that may be stuck in infinite loops.  Otherwise, a contestant could delay the results of a competition indefinitely.</p><p>(Imagine: "This competition was rigged!  The judges killed my program before it had a chance to finish.  It was working fine, and I was the first one to submit answers to all the problems.  What?  So it has a long start up time.  You don't have a rule against 100-hour programs.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the CPU time limit would be generous enough that it wo n't matter if your programming language is interpreted 10x slower than hand-tuned assembly .
They want to make sure you are n't using a brute-force O ( n ^ 3 ) algorithm when a linear one would work well enough.Plus , the judges need a rule to allow them to terminate programs that may be stuck in infinite loops .
Otherwise , a contestant could delay the results of a competition indefinitely .
( Imagine : " This competition was rigged !
The judges killed my program before it had a chance to finish .
It was working fine , and I was the first one to submit answers to all the problems .
What ? So it has a long start up time .
You do n't have a rule against 100-hour programs .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the CPU time limit would be generous enough that it won't matter if your programming language is interpreted 10x slower than hand-tuned assembly.
They want to make sure you aren't using a brute-force O(n^3) algorithm when a linear one would work well enough.Plus, the judges need a rule to allow them to terminate programs that may be stuck in infinite loops.
Otherwise, a contestant could delay the results of a competition indefinitely.
(Imagine: "This competition was rigged!
The judges killed my program before it had a chance to finish.
It was working fine, and I was the first one to submit answers to all the problems.
What?  So it has a long start up time.
You don't have a rule against 100-hour programs.
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476928</id>
	<title>Think long term</title>
	<author>sictransitgloriacfa</author>
	<datestamp>1268577120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After the test has come and gone, will they still be interested in programming? Only if they've had fun doing it. For that you want something they can learn quickly and do significant projects with. In short, Python.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After the test has come and gone , will they still be interested in programming ?
Only if they 've had fun doing it .
For that you want something they can learn quickly and do significant projects with .
In short , Python .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the test has come and gone, will they still be interested in programming?
Only if they've had fun doing it.
For that you want something they can learn quickly and do significant projects with.
In short, Python.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31489354</id>
	<title>So they dont put everything in 1 line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268655360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say python cause it also teaches them good coding style</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say python cause it also teaches them good coding style</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say python cause it also teaches them good coding style</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477268</id>
	<title>Be aware of prohibited stuff</title>
	<author>azh</author>
	<datestamp>1268579520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be aware if your language choice is based on build-in constructs, such as C++ vector. They sometimes are prohibited. Though if you are allowed to use standard library choose the language with the most powerful one/best known to you. In this case you will never face a need to recall quicksort algorithm, but simply call sort() method which is faster than everything you probably can write.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be aware if your language choice is based on build-in constructs , such as C + + vector .
They sometimes are prohibited .
Though if you are allowed to use standard library choose the language with the most powerful one/best known to you .
In this case you will never face a need to recall quicksort algorithm , but simply call sort ( ) method which is faster than everything you probably can write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be aware if your language choice is based on build-in constructs, such as C++ vector.
They sometimes are prohibited.
Though if you are allowed to use standard library choose the language with the most powerful one/best known to you.
In this case you will never face a need to recall quicksort algorithm, but simply call sort() method which is faster than everything you probably can write.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476914</id>
	<title>Stick with Python or Java</title>
	<author>offrdbandit</author>
	<datestamp>1268577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have students just beginning, the most important thing you can do to help them is to introduce them to a language/framework they can tinker with themselves. C and C++ can be problematic if the students run Windows at home. Be honest. If the students have as little experience as you say, the students will get far more benefit from becoming familiar with a language they can use at home, on the weekends, or whenever they feel like tinkering than they will being shoehorned into using C to fit under a competition's "CPU limit".

Disclaimer: I have no personal experience with VB or Pascal, so I didn't comment on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have students just beginning , the most important thing you can do to help them is to introduce them to a language/framework they can tinker with themselves .
C and C + + can be problematic if the students run Windows at home .
Be honest .
If the students have as little experience as you say , the students will get far more benefit from becoming familiar with a language they can use at home , on the weekends , or whenever they feel like tinkering than they will being shoehorned into using C to fit under a competition 's " CPU limit " .
Disclaimer : I have no personal experience with VB or Pascal , so I did n't comment on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have students just beginning, the most important thing you can do to help them is to introduce them to a language/framework they can tinker with themselves.
C and C++ can be problematic if the students run Windows at home.
Be honest.
If the students have as little experience as you say, the students will get far more benefit from becoming familiar with a language they can use at home, on the weekends, or whenever they feel like tinkering than they will being shoehorned into using C to fit under a competition's "CPU limit".
Disclaimer: I have no personal experience with VB or Pascal, so I didn't comment on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481614</id>
	<title>Re:Python will give you th least problems</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268666520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not on the list, but Ruby would also be nice.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sure someone mentioned this (and if there's a comment to this effect, mod Redundant please), but the contest regs rule out Ruby and Lua. Considering it would waste time and concentration in this context, so I'd stick with Python.</p><p>Still, it would be nice to see at least 4 more languages, like the aforementioned Ruby, Lua, Lisp (and/or a derivative), and one less mainstream language like Haskell or Ada. That they're including VB and PHP but not any of these is a little disheartening, though not surprising-- programming curricula are not known for creativity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not on the list , but Ruby would also be nice.I 'm sure someone mentioned this ( and if there 's a comment to this effect , mod Redundant please ) , but the contest regs rule out Ruby and Lua .
Considering it would waste time and concentration in this context , so I 'd stick with Python.Still , it would be nice to see at least 4 more languages , like the aforementioned Ruby , Lua , Lisp ( and/or a derivative ) , and one less mainstream language like Haskell or Ada .
That they 're including VB and PHP but not any of these is a little disheartening , though not surprising-- programming curricula are not known for creativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not on the list, but Ruby would also be nice.I'm sure someone mentioned this (and if there's a comment to this effect, mod Redundant please), but the contest regs rule out Ruby and Lua.
Considering it would waste time and concentration in this context, so I'd stick with Python.Still, it would be nice to see at least 4 more languages, like the aforementioned Ruby, Lua, Lisp (and/or a derivative), and one less mainstream language like Haskell or Ada.
That they're including VB and PHP but not any of these is a little disheartening, though not surprising-- programming curricula are not known for creativity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480134</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>quadrox</author>
	<datestamp>1268655300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>awesome - somebody should make this a real language. Who knows, maybe even me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>awesome - somebody should make this a real language .
Who knows , maybe even me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>awesome - somebody should make this a real language.
Who knows, maybe even me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477458</id>
	<title>Re:There's C then there's C written by newbies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268581080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
And C++ only compounds the problem.
</p><p>
This is an educational venture, right?  You have Python, a reasonably clean yet expressive high-level language to get kids hooked on programming.  Kids can write simple procedural programs to solve the problem at hand, without encumbering them with OO baggage that may not be useful.  It even comes with an animal icon.  Where is the dilemma?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And C + + only compounds the problem .
This is an educational venture , right ?
You have Python , a reasonably clean yet expressive high-level language to get kids hooked on programming .
Kids can write simple procedural programs to solve the problem at hand , without encumbering them with OO baggage that may not be useful .
It even comes with an animal icon .
Where is the dilemma ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
And C++ only compounds the problem.
This is an educational venture, right?
You have Python, a reasonably clean yet expressive high-level language to get kids hooked on programming.
Kids can write simple procedural programs to solve the problem at hand, without encumbering them with OO baggage that may not be useful.
It even comes with an animal icon.
Where is the dilemma?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31533016</id>
	<title>Re:Teach them C++</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268934660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need a webserver to run php, try the php5-cli package or just the php5 installer for windows. What do you think that line is at the top of</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need a webserver to run php , try the php5-cli package or just the php5 installer for windows .
What do you think that line is at the top of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need a webserver to run php, try the php5-cli package or just the php5 installer for windows.
What do you think that line is at the top of</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478846</id>
	<title>Re:Boy you're going to get lots of replies</title>
	<author>Novus</author>
	<datestamp>1268684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the event-driven approach used by VB is often useful, especially in GUI programming, it is not really relevant for a programming competition that focuses almost entirely on designing and implementing an algorithm to solve a small, specific problem. Even the "interactive" tasks tend to be of the form "read a line of input, update data structures, output new state".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the event-driven approach used by VB is often useful , especially in GUI programming , it is not really relevant for a programming competition that focuses almost entirely on designing and implementing an algorithm to solve a small , specific problem .
Even the " interactive " tasks tend to be of the form " read a line of input , update data structures , output new state " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the event-driven approach used by VB is often useful, especially in GUI programming, it is not really relevant for a programming competition that focuses almost entirely on designing and implementing an algorithm to solve a small, specific problem.
Even the "interactive" tasks tend to be of the form "read a line of input, update data structures, output new state".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477026</id>
	<title>c0m</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But s0ffice it , a proud member Wash oof hands</htmltext>
<tokenext>But s0ffice it , a proud member Wash oof hands</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But s0ffice it , a proud member Wash oof hands</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477962</id>
	<title>Re:Perl !!</title>
	<author>henni16</author>
	<datestamp>1268585760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the real unix men's attitude is "Sorry, I can't hear the specification over the sound of how awesome Perl is" and they ignore the requirements at hand to produce a really awesome Perl program that can't be executed in the target environment, I would rather give those fannies a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the real unix men 's attitude is " Sorry , I ca n't hear the specification over the sound of how awesome Perl is " and they ignore the requirements at hand to produce a really awesome Perl program that ca n't be executed in the target environment , I would rather give those fannies a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the real unix men's attitude is "Sorry, I can't hear the specification over the sound of how awesome Perl is" and they ignore the requirements at hand to produce a really awesome Perl program that can't be executed in the target environment, I would rather give those fannies a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31483868</id>
	<title>Which Pascal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268676480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is "Standard Pascal", I would vote against it, but if it is something more recent, e.g. Delphi or Free Pascal / Lazarus, I think that's the ideal choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is " Standard Pascal " , I would vote against it , but if it is something more recent , e.g .
Delphi or Free Pascal / Lazarus , I think that 's the ideal choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is "Standard Pascal", I would vote against it, but if it is something more recent, e.g.
Delphi or Free Pascal / Lazarus, I think that's the ideal choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31489696</id>
	<title>Re:Perl !!</title>
	<author>sreservoir</author>
	<datestamp>1268657280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>don't. can't you see it's ten years old?</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't .
ca n't you see it 's ten years old ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't.
can't you see it's ten years old?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477012</id>
	<title>Python would be my choice</title>
	<author>collywally</author>
	<datestamp>1268577660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried teaching my self some Python a while back and found it very easy.  The only experience that I had before in any computer language is MEL (Maya Embedded Language).  I bought a book called Game Programming (Publiser: Wiley, ISBN 978-0-470-06822-9) and over my two week Christmas break I was able to build a nice little top down shooter with programmer graphics.</p><p>It uses the pyGame library for most of the heavy hitting (like writing to the screen and the like) but it also introduced me to Objects and Classes as well as how to think in small steps to help break down what I was trying to do.</p><p>I always suggest this book to artists that I meet who wants to get into scripting.  And most of them who have borrowed it end up buying it for themselves when thay have to give back my book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried teaching my self some Python a while back and found it very easy .
The only experience that I had before in any computer language is MEL ( Maya Embedded Language ) .
I bought a book called Game Programming ( Publiser : Wiley , ISBN 978-0-470-06822-9 ) and over my two week Christmas break I was able to build a nice little top down shooter with programmer graphics.It uses the pyGame library for most of the heavy hitting ( like writing to the screen and the like ) but it also introduced me to Objects and Classes as well as how to think in small steps to help break down what I was trying to do.I always suggest this book to artists that I meet who wants to get into scripting .
And most of them who have borrowed it end up buying it for themselves when thay have to give back my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried teaching my self some Python a while back and found it very easy.
The only experience that I had before in any computer language is MEL (Maya Embedded Language).
I bought a book called Game Programming (Publiser: Wiley, ISBN 978-0-470-06822-9) and over my two week Christmas break I was able to build a nice little top down shooter with programmer graphics.It uses the pyGame library for most of the heavy hitting (like writing to the screen and the like) but it also introduced me to Objects and Classes as well as how to think in small steps to help break down what I was trying to do.I always suggest this book to artists that I meet who wants to get into scripting.
And most of them who have borrowed it end up buying it for themselves when thay have to give back my book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479922</id>
	<title>The two months' learning time is the real limit.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1268653200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The CPU time limit is less important in this instance than the two months you have to teach them.  In that amount of time, starting them from scratch, you won't likely get to the point of teaching them algorithm analysis and optimization anyway, much less benchmarks and profiling.<br><br>Consequently, Python will probably be a good deal *faster* than C, because its low-level stuff has already been optimized by people who know how.<br><br>If you use C, can you imagine getting new programming students, within two months, to the point where they are implementing hash-based associative arrays and a fast stable sort routine?  I can't.  In two months, working in C, you'll be lucky if they can remember how to copy a string.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CPU time limit is less important in this instance than the two months you have to teach them .
In that amount of time , starting them from scratch , you wo n't likely get to the point of teaching them algorithm analysis and optimization anyway , much less benchmarks and profiling.Consequently , Python will probably be a good deal * faster * than C , because its low-level stuff has already been optimized by people who know how.If you use C , can you imagine getting new programming students , within two months , to the point where they are implementing hash-based associative arrays and a fast stable sort routine ?
I ca n't .
In two months , working in C , you 'll be lucky if they can remember how to copy a string .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CPU time limit is less important in this instance than the two months you have to teach them.
In that amount of time, starting them from scratch, you won't likely get to the point of teaching them algorithm analysis and optimization anyway, much less benchmarks and profiling.Consequently, Python will probably be a good deal *faster* than C, because its low-level stuff has already been optimized by people who know how.If you use C, can you imagine getting new programming students, within two months, to the point where they are implementing hash-based associative arrays and a fast stable sort routine?
I can't.
In two months, working in C, you'll be lucky if they can remember how to copy a string.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479344</id>
	<title>I'd vote for PHP for newbies</title>
	<author>beneppel</author>
	<datestamp>1268647380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PHP is a great language to teach people programming on because it's simple, and practical, I think your aim should be to teach them something that they can use rather than to get them to win any contest. After a few PHP lessons, and a dollar or two for a cheap hosting solution, they can have something cool to show for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP is a great language to teach people programming on because it 's simple , and practical , I think your aim should be to teach them something that they can use rather than to get them to win any contest .
After a few PHP lessons , and a dollar or two for a cheap hosting solution , they can have something cool to show for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP is a great language to teach people programming on because it's simple, and practical, I think your aim should be to teach them something that they can use rather than to get them to win any contest.
After a few PHP lessons, and a dollar or two for a cheap hosting solution, they can have something cool to show for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478444</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>Corporate T00l</author>
	<datestamp>1268591880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, ACSL, that really takes me back. I used to submit my solutions in Prograph for the in-school problem sets (couldn't do this at the nationals, where we were using the centrally supplied computers). My peers would submit 2-3 page solutions in Pascal, my solutions would be like 15-20 pages of printed box and line diagrams.</p><p>Implementing recursion and linked lists was kind of weird as well, with no variables...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , ACSL , that really takes me back .
I used to submit my solutions in Prograph for the in-school problem sets ( could n't do this at the nationals , where we were using the centrally supplied computers ) .
My peers would submit 2-3 page solutions in Pascal , my solutions would be like 15-20 pages of printed box and line diagrams.Implementing recursion and linked lists was kind of weird as well , with no variables.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, ACSL, that really takes me back.
I used to submit my solutions in Prograph for the in-school problem sets (couldn't do this at the nationals, where we were using the centrally supplied computers).
My peers would submit 2-3 page solutions in Pascal, my solutions would be like 15-20 pages of printed box and line diagrams.Implementing recursion and linked lists was kind of weird as well, with no variables...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478180</id>
	<title>PHP all the way</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268588100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 - syntax is similar with C</p><p>2 - they can create things that they can see firsthand, use firsthand and show off to others firsthand on the web. (great incentive and motivation)</p><p>3 - php is an enterprise level language itself, used with many serious web presences and has serious backing with more to come. it will be a good start for them</p><p>4 - its easy to learn and possible to make extremely complex applications with, as well as making 20 line, working and useful scripts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 - syntax is similar with C2 - they can create things that they can see firsthand , use firsthand and show off to others firsthand on the web .
( great incentive and motivation ) 3 - php is an enterprise level language itself , used with many serious web presences and has serious backing with more to come .
it will be a good start for them4 - its easy to learn and possible to make extremely complex applications with , as well as making 20 line , working and useful scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 - syntax is similar with C2 - they can create things that they can see firsthand, use firsthand and show off to others firsthand on the web.
(great incentive and motivation)3 - php is an enterprise level language itself, used with many serious web presences and has serious backing with more to come.
it will be a good start for them4 - its easy to learn and possible to make extremely complex applications with, as well as making 20 line, working and useful scripts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481734</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268667000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perl is write only, while Python is fairly easy to read even if you don't know it.</p><p>Just sayin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl is write only , while Python is fairly easy to read even if you do n't know it.Just sayin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perl is write only, while Python is fairly easy to read even if you don't know it.Just sayin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477238</id>
	<title>javascript - jsdb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.jsdb.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.jsdb.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.jsdb.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477582</id>
	<title>Java</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1268582580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+ Serious real world scalable language used in both business and science<br>+ Freely available on a wide variety of hardware -&gt; gives access to any child with any kind of computer<br>+ Learn OO from day 1<br>+ Java collections give students access to data structures and algorithms without having to get bogged down in writing them at a low level<br>- Never learn to implement those low level data structures in algorithms (but don't forget you have just 2 months!)<br>- Slower than C<br>- Not as close to the hardware as C</p><p>Overall a decent compromise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ Serious real world scalable language used in both business and science + Freely available on a wide variety of hardware - &gt; gives access to any child with any kind of computer + Learn OO from day 1 + Java collections give students access to data structures and algorithms without having to get bogged down in writing them at a low level- Never learn to implement those low level data structures in algorithms ( but do n't forget you have just 2 months !
) - Slower than C- Not as close to the hardware as COverall a decent compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+ Serious real world scalable language used in both business and science+ Freely available on a wide variety of hardware -&gt; gives access to any child with any kind of computer+ Learn OO from day 1+ Java collections give students access to data structures and algorithms without having to get bogged down in writing them at a low level- Never learn to implement those low level data structures in algorithms (but don't forget you have just 2 months!
)- Slower than C- Not as close to the hardware as COverall a decent compromise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476786</id>
	<title>Go with an Interpreted Language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268576220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're interested in teaching the principles, rather than the mechanics of the programming process.  If so, avoid steps like compiling - with its time overhead.  So, no C-derivative.</p><p>I'd go with an interpreted language in order to get directly to the problem - my guess is that yr stated concern re 'efficiency' is unjustified here.  Ideally, it's Pascal for its clarity, but I don't know of an interpreted Pascal.  So maybe - a surprise here - PHP.</p><p>AS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're interested in teaching the principles , rather than the mechanics of the programming process .
If so , avoid steps like compiling - with its time overhead .
So , no C-derivative.I 'd go with an interpreted language in order to get directly to the problem - my guess is that yr stated concern re 'efficiency ' is unjustified here .
Ideally , it 's Pascal for its clarity , but I do n't know of an interpreted Pascal .
So maybe - a surprise here - PHP.AS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're interested in teaching the principles, rather than the mechanics of the programming process.
If so, avoid steps like compiling - with its time overhead.
So, no C-derivative.I'd go with an interpreted language in order to get directly to the problem - my guess is that yr stated concern re 'efficiency' is unjustified here.
Ideally, it's Pascal for its clarity, but I don't know of an interpreted Pascal.
So maybe - a surprise here - PHP.AS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31483404</id>
	<title>Re:Python will give you th least problems</title>
	<author>LCValentine</author>
	<datestamp>1268674440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>PHP is obscure in palaces</p></div><p>I miss PHP's obscure palaces.  Once I get to level 6 I'm sure there will be more though!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP is obscure in palacesI miss PHP 's obscure palaces .
Once I get to level 6 I 'm sure there will be more though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP is obscure in palacesI miss PHP's obscure palaces.
Once I get to level 6 I'm sure there will be more though!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696</id>
	<title>Psyco</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1268575680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For Python, can they use: <a href="http://psyco.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">Psyco</a> [sourceforge.net] as a library?  That would help being practically a Just In Time compiler.  It's x86 architectures only but that should be what they're running.  As a side point I find it irritating that a language that is designed to be friendly <i>and</i> powerful is disadvantaged by counting CPU cycles: especially since in the real world those are plentiful compared to the scarce resources available for the hard work of debugging.  And in Python if the CPU is your constraint - which it isn't in most programs - then you write that little bit of CPU code in C or C++ and call that one part from Python.  This keeps the rest of the program easy to debug and portable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For Python , can they use : Psyco [ sourceforge.net ] as a library ?
That would help being practically a Just In Time compiler .
It 's x86 architectures only but that should be what they 're running .
As a side point I find it irritating that a language that is designed to be friendly and powerful is disadvantaged by counting CPU cycles : especially since in the real world those are plentiful compared to the scarce resources available for the hard work of debugging .
And in Python if the CPU is your constraint - which it is n't in most programs - then you write that little bit of CPU code in C or C + + and call that one part from Python .
This keeps the rest of the program easy to debug and portable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Python, can they use: Psyco [sourceforge.net] as a library?
That would help being practically a Just In Time compiler.
It's x86 architectures only but that should be what they're running.
As a side point I find it irritating that a language that is designed to be friendly and powerful is disadvantaged by counting CPU cycles: especially since in the real world those are plentiful compared to the scarce resources available for the hard work of debugging.
And in Python if the CPU is your constraint - which it isn't in most programs - then you write that little bit of CPU code in C or C++ and call that one part from Python.
This keeps the rest of the program easy to debug and portable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479554</id>
	<title>Re:Psyco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268649600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psyco is nearly useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psyco is nearly useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psyco is nearly useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477878</id>
	<title>Things you might want to consider</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1268585100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've participated in local and regional Informatics Olympiads, and went to the IOI once. I was involved in training local students a few years ago, so I know quite a bit of the ins and outs of these competitions.</p><p>All the languages have pros and cons, but PHP and VB obviously aren't suitable (if only for their encouragement of crappy coding practices). Java offers little advantage over C/C++, and it forces OOP onto you so it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity for the students.</p><p>The "industry standard" of competitive programming is C++, since it offers near-C speed with the power of various algorithms (eg. sort) and data structures ( maps, sets, priority queues ). Those who intend to take the competition seriously should be using C++ as their primary language. But then judging from your requirements the vast majority of your students won't fall into this category, so I wouldn't recommend C++, at least not at this stage.</p><p>Python generally is a good first language for its simplicity and power. There are a few problems with using python for competitive programming though. First, speed can become a problem for *some* contests, which have rather tight runtime constraints. The contests that cater for a wide range of languages are usually better in this respect, but a lot out there are primarily C/C++/Pascal/Java. Secondly, the fact that python supports a range of built in advanced data structures and algorithms means that you may lose the chance to teach them how to implement the basic stuff, eg. using a binary search tree to implement a map (typing `` mymap = {}; mymap[foo] = bar;  '' is surely easier than implementing a BST yourself). You might ask why learn to reinvent the wheel when most modern languages provide these features, but these data structures and algorithms is the core of informatics olympiads, and one needs to learn from the basics. That being said, if the timeframe is just 2 months, I think teaching python might be most rewarding for the students.</p><p>C and Pascal are basically on the same league. C is a bit more "archaic" than Pascal in terms of the way it does things, but feature-wise they are roughly equivalent. The languages are simple, fast, and bare bones enough to force the user to implement the basic stuff. In the long term they are good languages for teaching data structures and algorithms, but require a bit of patience on the part of the student since you need to know quite a bit before you can do anything "flashy" with them.</p><p>My experience with most average students is that they usually struggle to form precise ideas on what to tell the program to do, and then when they do have rough ideas they then fail to write a syntactically correct program, and if they really do write a syntactically correct program the program usually fails on correctness for most inputs, or simply do the wrong thing. Running time shouldn't be a concern before the students actually get a correct program, and my experience is, unless you have really really bright students, most of them probably won't be able to come close to writing a correct program within competition constraints, so don't worry too much about running time.</p><p>In short, I recommend python, but in the long term you might want to think about using C/Pascal. And if you restrain yourself to a subset of C++, it might work too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've participated in local and regional Informatics Olympiads , and went to the IOI once .
I was involved in training local students a few years ago , so I know quite a bit of the ins and outs of these competitions.All the languages have pros and cons , but PHP and VB obviously are n't suitable ( if only for their encouragement of crappy coding practices ) .
Java offers little advantage over C/C + + , and it forces OOP onto you so it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity for the students.The " industry standard " of competitive programming is C + + , since it offers near-C speed with the power of various algorithms ( eg .
sort ) and data structures ( maps , sets , priority queues ) .
Those who intend to take the competition seriously should be using C + + as their primary language .
But then judging from your requirements the vast majority of your students wo n't fall into this category , so I would n't recommend C + + , at least not at this stage.Python generally is a good first language for its simplicity and power .
There are a few problems with using python for competitive programming though .
First , speed can become a problem for * some * contests , which have rather tight runtime constraints .
The contests that cater for a wide range of languages are usually better in this respect , but a lot out there are primarily C/C + + /Pascal/Java .
Secondly , the fact that python supports a range of built in advanced data structures and algorithms means that you may lose the chance to teach them how to implement the basic stuff , eg .
using a binary search tree to implement a map ( typing ` ` mymap = { } ; mymap [ foo ] = bar ; ' ' is surely easier than implementing a BST yourself ) .
You might ask why learn to reinvent the wheel when most modern languages provide these features , but these data structures and algorithms is the core of informatics olympiads , and one needs to learn from the basics .
That being said , if the timeframe is just 2 months , I think teaching python might be most rewarding for the students.C and Pascal are basically on the same league .
C is a bit more " archaic " than Pascal in terms of the way it does things , but feature-wise they are roughly equivalent .
The languages are simple , fast , and bare bones enough to force the user to implement the basic stuff .
In the long term they are good languages for teaching data structures and algorithms , but require a bit of patience on the part of the student since you need to know quite a bit before you can do anything " flashy " with them.My experience with most average students is that they usually struggle to form precise ideas on what to tell the program to do , and then when they do have rough ideas they then fail to write a syntactically correct program , and if they really do write a syntactically correct program the program usually fails on correctness for most inputs , or simply do the wrong thing .
Running time should n't be a concern before the students actually get a correct program , and my experience is , unless you have really really bright students , most of them probably wo n't be able to come close to writing a correct program within competition constraints , so do n't worry too much about running time.In short , I recommend python , but in the long term you might want to think about using C/Pascal .
And if you restrain yourself to a subset of C + + , it might work too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've participated in local and regional Informatics Olympiads, and went to the IOI once.
I was involved in training local students a few years ago, so I know quite a bit of the ins and outs of these competitions.All the languages have pros and cons, but PHP and VB obviously aren't suitable (if only for their encouragement of crappy coding practices).
Java offers little advantage over C/C++, and it forces OOP onto you so it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity for the students.The "industry standard" of competitive programming is C++, since it offers near-C speed with the power of various algorithms (eg.
sort) and data structures ( maps, sets, priority queues ).
Those who intend to take the competition seriously should be using C++ as their primary language.
But then judging from your requirements the vast majority of your students won't fall into this category, so I wouldn't recommend C++, at least not at this stage.Python generally is a good first language for its simplicity and power.
There are a few problems with using python for competitive programming though.
First, speed can become a problem for *some* contests, which have rather tight runtime constraints.
The contests that cater for a wide range of languages are usually better in this respect, but a lot out there are primarily C/C++/Pascal/Java.
Secondly, the fact that python supports a range of built in advanced data structures and algorithms means that you may lose the chance to teach them how to implement the basic stuff, eg.
using a binary search tree to implement a map (typing `` mymap = {}; mymap[foo] = bar;  '' is surely easier than implementing a BST yourself).
You might ask why learn to reinvent the wheel when most modern languages provide these features, but these data structures and algorithms is the core of informatics olympiads, and one needs to learn from the basics.
That being said, if the timeframe is just 2 months, I think teaching python might be most rewarding for the students.C and Pascal are basically on the same league.
C is a bit more "archaic" than Pascal in terms of the way it does things, but feature-wise they are roughly equivalent.
The languages are simple, fast, and bare bones enough to force the user to implement the basic stuff.
In the long term they are good languages for teaching data structures and algorithms, but require a bit of patience on the part of the student since you need to know quite a bit before you can do anything "flashy" with them.My experience with most average students is that they usually struggle to form precise ideas on what to tell the program to do, and then when they do have rough ideas they then fail to write a syntactically correct program, and if they really do write a syntactically correct program the program usually fails on correctness for most inputs, or simply do the wrong thing.
Running time shouldn't be a concern before the students actually get a correct program, and my experience is, unless you have really really bright students, most of them probably won't be able to come close to writing a correct program within competition constraints, so don't worry too much about running time.In short, I recommend python, but in the long term you might want to think about using C/Pascal.
And if you restrain yourself to a subset of C++, it might work too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31519124</id>
	<title>Python sucks ass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Irrespective of cpu time constraints my experience with python is that by dumbing down it discourages the programer from organization of there code resulting in horible messes.  Wheras with c++ or C (especially C oh beautiful C) the code is nice and I don't have to fuck around with pretending that memory that holds an int is different from memory that holds a char etc.  The hand holding sucks when you know you just want to flip a single bit in a register somewhere instead of including 2 different libs and messing around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Irrespective of cpu time constraints my experience with python is that by dumbing down it discourages the programer from organization of there code resulting in horible messes .
Wheras with c + + or C ( especially C oh beautiful C ) the code is nice and I do n't have to fuck around with pretending that memory that holds an int is different from memory that holds a char etc .
The hand holding sucks when you know you just want to flip a single bit in a register somewhere instead of including 2 different libs and messing around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irrespective of cpu time constraints my experience with python is that by dumbing down it discourages the programer from organization of there code resulting in horible messes.
Wheras with c++ or C (especially C oh beautiful C) the code is nice and I don't have to fuck around with pretending that memory that holds an int is different from memory that holds a char etc.
The hand holding sucks when you know you just want to flip a single bit in a register somewhere instead of including 2 different libs and messing around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478700</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1268595840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this is critical for a school project how?
<p>
Choosing a language based on fast runtime speed when</p><ol>
<li>speed is not an explicit requirement</li><li>you'll get better performance benefits from getting the algorithm correct</li><li>in an educational situation, a slower language will show poor code up even more</li></ol><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is retarded.  There's plenty of real software out there written in python, and being easier to learn than C will make it easier for students to tweak algorithms.  Getting algorithms correct is the more important programmer skill - implementing the actual algorithm in language X is a dumb task that may even be made redundant as compilers and programming languages advance.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is critical for a school project how ?
Choosing a language based on fast runtime speed when speed is not an explicit requirementyou 'll get better performance benefits from getting the algorithm correctin an educational situation , a slower language will show poor code up even more ... is retarded .
There 's plenty of real software out there written in python , and being easier to learn than C will make it easier for students to tweak algorithms .
Getting algorithms correct is the more important programmer skill - implementing the actual algorithm in language X is a dumb task that may even be made redundant as compilers and programming languages advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is critical for a school project how?
Choosing a language based on fast runtime speed when
speed is not an explicit requirementyou'll get better performance benefits from getting the algorithm correctin an educational situation, a slower language will show poor code up even more ... is retarded.
There's plenty of real software out there written in python, and being easier to learn than C will make it easier for students to tweak algorithms.
Getting algorithms correct is the more important programmer skill - implementing the actual algorithm in language X is a dumb task that may even be made redundant as compilers and programming languages advance.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31501128</id>
	<title>Re:I'm guessing the CPU limits are generous.</title>
	<author>niftymitch</author>
	<datestamp>1268732640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And much of the Python library hot spots have been coded in "C" to the point that they are not interpreted.  Python continues to impress me as to how fast it can be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And much of the Python library hot spots have been coded in " C " to the point that they are not interpreted .
Python continues to impress me as to how fast it can be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And much of the Python library hot spots have been coded in "C" to the point that they are not interpreted.
Python continues to impress me as to how fast it can be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477522</id>
	<title>IDE</title>
	<author>Trieuvan</author>
	<datestamp>1268581980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think java is the best because it has good IDE (eclipse, netbeans etc...) . Good IDE may help you learn the language quickly write code fast.
Btw, top ten in topcoder, 8 use C++ and 2 use java<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<a href="http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=AlgoRank" title="topcoder.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=AlgoRank</a> [topcoder.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think java is the best because it has good IDE ( eclipse , netbeans etc... ) .
Good IDE may help you learn the language quickly write code fast .
Btw , top ten in topcoder , 8 use C + + and 2 use java : ) http : //www.topcoder.com/tc ? module = AlgoRank [ topcoder.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think java is the best because it has good IDE (eclipse, netbeans etc...) .
Good IDE may help you learn the language quickly write code fast.
Btw, top ten in topcoder, 8 use C++ and 2 use java :)
http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=AlgoRank [topcoder.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480492</id>
	<title>Re:Python will give you th least problems</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1268659260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a really good reason for Ruby not be listed. Just look at the benchmarks it against other languages. And again, I would like to remind that no language can become a incompetent developer able to make good software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a really good reason for Ruby not be listed .
Just look at the benchmarks it against other languages .
And again , I would like to remind that no language can become a incompetent developer able to make good software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a really good reason for Ruby not be listed.
Just look at the benchmarks it against other languages.
And again, I would like to remind that no language can become a incompetent developer able to make good software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478794</id>
	<title>Python. Run time isn't a big deal here.</title>
	<author>Sarusa</author>
	<datestamp>1268683980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We run python on our embedded 125 MHz ARM systems. For most things it's just as fast as C - on tight loops, you can get 40\% faster in C, though not as often as you might think. Sometimes the Python is even faster just because it's optimized for things you normally want to do. Really, most of the time is in the launch, so as long as there's already an instance of python in memory linux's shared pages takes care of that.</p><p>More to the point, you can develop 10x faster in Python than C++. Literally. And it's so much easier to learn and more intuitive. And I say that as someone who is considered the company expert on C++. There are times when I still use it, but for instances where speed of development is a big deal? Never. Rather we write in Python then if necessary do tiny sections in C and call them from the Python. For any kind of problem I can see being asked at a competition like this the speed of development and the freedom to work out  a smart algorithm via rapid iteration (if you don't have the experience to know already) will swamp the CPU overhead. If you really want an ace in the hole give your smartest student the task of learning how to call C from Python (you don't need C++ at all if you know both of those).</p><p>I'd also say Ruby - you can crank out stuff in Ruby even faster than in Python (though it's not as maintainable thanks to all the perl-y syntax) but this doesn't seem to be on the list here. And Teaching Visual Basic or PHP to students who don't have a very specific need for either would just be a crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We run python on our embedded 125 MHz ARM systems .
For most things it 's just as fast as C - on tight loops , you can get 40 \ % faster in C , though not as often as you might think .
Sometimes the Python is even faster just because it 's optimized for things you normally want to do .
Really , most of the time is in the launch , so as long as there 's already an instance of python in memory linux 's shared pages takes care of that.More to the point , you can develop 10x faster in Python than C + + .
Literally. And it 's so much easier to learn and more intuitive .
And I say that as someone who is considered the company expert on C + + .
There are times when I still use it , but for instances where speed of development is a big deal ?
Never. Rather we write in Python then if necessary do tiny sections in C and call them from the Python .
For any kind of problem I can see being asked at a competition like this the speed of development and the freedom to work out a smart algorithm via rapid iteration ( if you do n't have the experience to know already ) will swamp the CPU overhead .
If you really want an ace in the hole give your smartest student the task of learning how to call C from Python ( you do n't need C + + at all if you know both of those ) .I 'd also say Ruby - you can crank out stuff in Ruby even faster than in Python ( though it 's not as maintainable thanks to all the perl-y syntax ) but this does n't seem to be on the list here .
And Teaching Visual Basic or PHP to students who do n't have a very specific need for either would just be a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We run python on our embedded 125 MHz ARM systems.
For most things it's just as fast as C - on tight loops, you can get 40\% faster in C, though not as often as you might think.
Sometimes the Python is even faster just because it's optimized for things you normally want to do.
Really, most of the time is in the launch, so as long as there's already an instance of python in memory linux's shared pages takes care of that.More to the point, you can develop 10x faster in Python than C++.
Literally. And it's so much easier to learn and more intuitive.
And I say that as someone who is considered the company expert on C++.
There are times when I still use it, but for instances where speed of development is a big deal?
Never. Rather we write in Python then if necessary do tiny sections in C and call them from the Python.
For any kind of problem I can see being asked at a competition like this the speed of development and the freedom to work out  a smart algorithm via rapid iteration (if you don't have the experience to know already) will swamp the CPU overhead.
If you really want an ace in the hole give your smartest student the task of learning how to call C from Python (you don't need C++ at all if you know both of those).I'd also say Ruby - you can crank out stuff in Ruby even faster than in Python (though it's not as maintainable thanks to all the perl-y syntax) but this doesn't seem to be on the list here.
And Teaching Visual Basic or PHP to students who don't have a very specific need for either would just be a crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408</id>
	<title>Teach them C++</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>teach them C++, because
<ul>
<li>Most software (iirc 80\% or so) today is written in C or C++</li>
<li>C++ is <b>the</b> mandatory language for nearly all well paid programming jobs</li>
<li>C++ makes it easy to learn Java (but not vice versa), which is also popular with employers</li>
<li>C is C++ for masochists. C++ has everything C has, but not vice versa</li>
<li>forget turbo pascal! that's an educational language, which is hardly used in the real world (esp. because of the lack of object orientation)</li>
<li>google dijkstras comment on BASIC</li>
<li>Python is OK, but not so widely used AND it's an interpreter language (automatic deduction of points)</li>
<li>I wouldn't use PHP, since it makes it hard to execute (you need to run a webserver with PHP support and browse to it) and PHP will be dead as soon as the http &amp; html+js+css+flash+AJAX+... mess is cleaned up...</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>teach them C + + , because Most software ( iirc 80 \ % or so ) today is written in C or C + + C + + is the mandatory language for nearly all well paid programming jobs C + + makes it easy to learn Java ( but not vice versa ) , which is also popular with employers C is C + + for masochists .
C + + has everything C has , but not vice versa forget turbo pascal !
that 's an educational language , which is hardly used in the real world ( esp .
because of the lack of object orientation ) google dijkstras comment on BASIC Python is OK , but not so widely used AND it 's an interpreter language ( automatic deduction of points ) I would n't use PHP , since it makes it hard to execute ( you need to run a webserver with PHP support and browse to it ) and PHP will be dead as soon as the http &amp; html + js + css + flash + AJAX + ... mess is cleaned up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teach them C++, because

Most software (iirc 80\% or so) today is written in C or C++
C++ is the mandatory language for nearly all well paid programming jobs
C++ makes it easy to learn Java (but not vice versa), which is also popular with employers
C is C++ for masochists.
C++ has everything C has, but not vice versa
forget turbo pascal!
that's an educational language, which is hardly used in the real world (esp.
because of the lack of object orientation)
google dijkstras comment on BASIC
Python is OK, but not so widely used AND it's an interpreter language (automatic deduction of points)
I wouldn't use PHP, since it makes it hard to execute (you need to run a webserver with PHP support and browse to it) and PHP will be dead as soon as the http &amp; html+js+css+flash+AJAX+... mess is cleaned up...
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476728</id>
	<title>Language shouldn't push you past the limit</title>
	<author>EEBaum</author>
	<datestamp>1268575920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having competed in a handful of collegiate programming contests about 10 years ago, the CPU time limit was never even a passing concern.  Granted, we were coding in C++, but even in Python, any solution that hits the CPU limit on these contests is quite likely an unnecessarily complex algorithm.  I always considered the CPU limit to be a safeguard against programs with infinite loops or REALLY slow solutions, so that the teams wouldn't claim "no, really, it works!" and drag the contest on for hours insisting that the right answer will reveal itself shortly.  If your solution works, but has complexity of O(n!), I'd have a hard time calling it acceptable.<br>
<br>
If one of our entries was rejected due to exceeding the CPU limit, it was always due to a problem in our logic that the sample data hadn't triggered, but that the actual test data had.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having competed in a handful of collegiate programming contests about 10 years ago , the CPU time limit was never even a passing concern .
Granted , we were coding in C + + , but even in Python , any solution that hits the CPU limit on these contests is quite likely an unnecessarily complex algorithm .
I always considered the CPU limit to be a safeguard against programs with infinite loops or REALLY slow solutions , so that the teams would n't claim " no , really , it works !
" and drag the contest on for hours insisting that the right answer will reveal itself shortly .
If your solution works , but has complexity of O ( n !
) , I 'd have a hard time calling it acceptable .
If one of our entries was rejected due to exceeding the CPU limit , it was always due to a problem in our logic that the sample data had n't triggered , but that the actual test data had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having competed in a handful of collegiate programming contests about 10 years ago, the CPU time limit was never even a passing concern.
Granted, we were coding in C++, but even in Python, any solution that hits the CPU limit on these contests is quite likely an unnecessarily complex algorithm.
I always considered the CPU limit to be a safeguard against programs with infinite loops or REALLY slow solutions, so that the teams wouldn't claim "no, really, it works!
" and drag the contest on for hours insisting that the right answer will reveal itself shortly.
If your solution works, but has complexity of O(n!
), I'd have a hard time calling it acceptable.
If one of our entries was rejected due to exceeding the CPU limit, it was always due to a problem in our logic that the sample data hadn't triggered, but that the actual test data had.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478658</id>
	<title>My personal experience.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268595120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I competed in the 2004 Australasian Informatics Competition (which was renamed to Olympiad in 2005 iirc), and at that stage I had been learning C++ for about 2 months, and had very little programming experience before that.  Although I had a lack of programming experience, I still placed within the top 100 students in Australasia and got my school a grant for new computers (which I never got to use).</p><p>Now that I have learned other languages as well (Python, Java and Pascal), I would honestly say there is no clear cut advantage to any programming language.  No problem required OOP, it was moreso about the problem solving and getting it into algorithms rather than a test of programming.  While efficiency is a marking criteria, it doesn't feature anywhere near as heavily as actually solving the problems.  I only finished 2/4 of my programs and did (in my opinion) fairly well.</p><p>If you want to tutor them for this competition, tutor them in a language that they feel comfortable with and is accessible to them where they will be taking the test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I competed in the 2004 Australasian Informatics Competition ( which was renamed to Olympiad in 2005 iirc ) , and at that stage I had been learning C + + for about 2 months , and had very little programming experience before that .
Although I had a lack of programming experience , I still placed within the top 100 students in Australasia and got my school a grant for new computers ( which I never got to use ) .Now that I have learned other languages as well ( Python , Java and Pascal ) , I would honestly say there is no clear cut advantage to any programming language .
No problem required OOP , it was moreso about the problem solving and getting it into algorithms rather than a test of programming .
While efficiency is a marking criteria , it does n't feature anywhere near as heavily as actually solving the problems .
I only finished 2/4 of my programs and did ( in my opinion ) fairly well.If you want to tutor them for this competition , tutor them in a language that they feel comfortable with and is accessible to them where they will be taking the test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I competed in the 2004 Australasian Informatics Competition (which was renamed to Olympiad in 2005 iirc), and at that stage I had been learning C++ for about 2 months, and had very little programming experience before that.
Although I had a lack of programming experience, I still placed within the top 100 students in Australasia and got my school a grant for new computers (which I never got to use).Now that I have learned other languages as well (Python, Java and Pascal), I would honestly say there is no clear cut advantage to any programming language.
No problem required OOP, it was moreso about the problem solving and getting it into algorithms rather than a test of programming.
While efficiency is a marking criteria, it doesn't feature anywhere near as heavily as actually solving the problems.
I only finished 2/4 of my programs and did (in my opinion) fairly well.If you want to tutor them for this competition, tutor them in a language that they feel comfortable with and is accessible to them where they will be taking the test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477484</id>
	<title>Re:Faster than you think</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1268581380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Python is faster than you think.</p></div><p>huh?  it's about 1000x slower than C.  and No i'm not exaggerating.   Numpy is fast and close to C.  Python itself is not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Python is faster than you think.huh ?
it 's about 1000x slower than C. and No i 'm not exaggerating .
Numpy is fast and close to C. Python itself is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python is faster than you think.huh?
it's about 1000x slower than C.  and No i'm not exaggerating.
Numpy is fast and close to C.  Python itself is not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31523212</id>
	<title>In my opinion...</title>
	<author>Norailyain</author>
	<datestamp>1268928960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I don't have any.</p><p>But I like to laugh about programming-language fanboyism:</p><p><a href="http://blog.aegisub.org/2008/12/if-programming-languages-were-religions.html" title="aegisub.org" rel="nofollow">http://blog.aegisub.org/2008/12/if-programming-languages-were-religions.html</a> [aegisub.org]</p><p><a href="http://despuesdegoogle.com/wp-content/language-fanboys.jpg" title="despuesdegoogle.com" rel="nofollow">http://despuesdegoogle.com/wp-content/language-fanboys.jpg</a> [despuesdegoogle.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I do n't have any.But I like to laugh about programming-language fanboyism : http : //blog.aegisub.org/2008/12/if-programming-languages-were-religions.html [ aegisub.org ] http : //despuesdegoogle.com/wp-content/language-fanboys.jpg [ despuesdegoogle.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I don't have any.But I like to laugh about programming-language fanboyism:http://blog.aegisub.org/2008/12/if-programming-languages-were-religions.html [aegisub.org]http://despuesdegoogle.com/wp-content/language-fanboys.jpg [despuesdegoogle.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480420</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy... can't resist...</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1268658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you JRE is ready to load your app, the time limit is already over<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you JRE is ready to load your app , the time limit is already over : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you JRE is ready to load your app, the time limit is already over :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477346</id>
	<title>Re:There's C then there's C written by newbies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268580120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the case of leaking, any. You have to be a retard to leak memory in C. A free for each malloc isn't rocket science. Bad design and ignorance are the most common causes for memory leaks. You either create a mess so complicated that you can't figure where to free your memory or just don't know that you are supposed to free it. Objective-C and especially C++ have more problems because of the whole instance creation and destruction abstraction, but in the end the problem is ignorance from ex-Java people that were used to create objects and let the Garbage collector pick them up.</p><p>Buffer overflows and off by one on the other hand are more frequent problems in C (Where frequent is at all because managed languages are unable to break free from their head protections), but knowing about them and avoiding overflow fodder(strcpy, gets) is often enough to keep them close to 0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of leaking , any .
You have to be a retard to leak memory in C. A free for each malloc is n't rocket science .
Bad design and ignorance are the most common causes for memory leaks .
You either create a mess so complicated that you ca n't figure where to free your memory or just do n't know that you are supposed to free it .
Objective-C and especially C + + have more problems because of the whole instance creation and destruction abstraction , but in the end the problem is ignorance from ex-Java people that were used to create objects and let the Garbage collector pick them up.Buffer overflows and off by one on the other hand are more frequent problems in C ( Where frequent is at all because managed languages are unable to break free from their head protections ) , but knowing about them and avoiding overflow fodder ( strcpy , gets ) is often enough to keep them close to 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of leaking, any.
You have to be a retard to leak memory in C. A free for each malloc isn't rocket science.
Bad design and ignorance are the most common causes for memory leaks.
You either create a mess so complicated that you can't figure where to free your memory or just don't know that you are supposed to free it.
Objective-C and especially C++ have more problems because of the whole instance creation and destruction abstraction, but in the end the problem is ignorance from ex-Java people that were used to create objects and let the Garbage collector pick them up.Buffer overflows and off by one on the other hand are more frequent problems in C (Where frequent is at all because managed languages are unable to break free from their head protections), but knowing about them and avoiding overflow fodder(strcpy, gets) is often enough to keep them close to 0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480706</id>
	<title>Re:The syntax viewpoint is an oversimplification.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268661060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize you are quite old (and trust me, I will get off your lawn asap!), but Python is anything but a "immature" language "du jour".</p><p>First, it is around 19 years old (yes, seriously).  I would hate to see any language that is 19 years old and still "immature".</p><p>Second, it is used quite heavily by modern Linux distributions as well as large corporations as Google.  This tends to indicate is probably isnt a "du jour" technology, as I highly doubt these corporations would invest in something unless they expected maintained use of the product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize you are quite old ( and trust me , I will get off your lawn asap !
) , but Python is anything but a " immature " language " du jour " .First , it is around 19 years old ( yes , seriously ) .
I would hate to see any language that is 19 years old and still " immature " .Second , it is used quite heavily by modern Linux distributions as well as large corporations as Google .
This tends to indicate is probably isnt a " du jour " technology , as I highly doubt these corporations would invest in something unless they expected maintained use of the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize you are quite old (and trust me, I will get off your lawn asap!
), but Python is anything but a "immature" language "du jour".First, it is around 19 years old (yes, seriously).
I would hate to see any language that is 19 years old and still "immature".Second, it is used quite heavily by modern Linux distributions as well as large corporations as Google.
This tends to indicate is probably isnt a "du jour" technology, as I highly doubt these corporations would invest in something unless they expected maintained use of the product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477150</id>
	<title>Forget the higher level languages</title>
	<author>dynchaw</author>
	<datestamp>1268578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to give these kids a solid foundation to build on that will instill good habits and understanding of how computers work - C.</p><p>Java runs on top of an engine written in C - same with Python. They're great for doing that they do which is providing a massive library to take out all the menial tasks, but those menial tasks are the ones that teach people how everything works in the first place. How do they become a menial task if no one ever learned they were there?</p><p>Do we teach calculus without first teaching numbers and then general addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc etc etc</p><p>I have spent years beating the bad habits of Java out of programmers. Garbage collection is all nice and wonderful but it prevents programmers from having to think about memory at all. Taking that Java programmer and trying to get them to write even simple C/C++ code or even something as basic as assembler is damn hard! Everything they have learned has to be re-grounded. It's like boot camp - break them down to so they can be built up into something useful.</p><p>It's easy to teach someone who knows C how to write C++, Java, Python, or the zillion of other languages out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to give these kids a solid foundation to build on that will instill good habits and understanding of how computers work - C.Java runs on top of an engine written in C - same with Python .
They 're great for doing that they do which is providing a massive library to take out all the menial tasks , but those menial tasks are the ones that teach people how everything works in the first place .
How do they become a menial task if no one ever learned they were there ? Do we teach calculus without first teaching numbers and then general addition , subtraction , multiplication , division , etc etc etcI have spent years beating the bad habits of Java out of programmers .
Garbage collection is all nice and wonderful but it prevents programmers from having to think about memory at all .
Taking that Java programmer and trying to get them to write even simple C/C + + code or even something as basic as assembler is damn hard !
Everything they have learned has to be re-grounded .
It 's like boot camp - break them down to so they can be built up into something useful.It 's easy to teach someone who knows C how to write C + + , Java , Python , or the zillion of other languages out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to give these kids a solid foundation to build on that will instill good habits and understanding of how computers work - C.Java runs on top of an engine written in C - same with Python.
They're great for doing that they do which is providing a massive library to take out all the menial tasks, but those menial tasks are the ones that teach people how everything works in the first place.
How do they become a menial task if no one ever learned they were there?Do we teach calculus without first teaching numbers and then general addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc etc etcI have spent years beating the bad habits of Java out of programmers.
Garbage collection is all nice and wonderful but it prevents programmers from having to think about memory at all.
Taking that Java programmer and trying to get them to write even simple C/C++ code or even something as basic as assembler is damn hard!
Everything they have learned has to be re-grounded.
It's like boot camp - break them down to so they can be built up into something useful.It's easy to teach someone who knows C how to write C++, Java, Python, or the zillion of other languages out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477794</id>
	<title>Re:Boy you're going to get lots of replies</title>
	<author>LodCrappo</author>
	<datestamp>1268584440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the only goal is to get these kids doing well in the contest, I agree that VB might have some merit, although there are IDEs for other languages that provide similar tools.</p><p>However, if the instructor also intends to give these kids skill with something they could actually use later in life, VB seems a poor choice compared to almost all of the others (Pascal being an obvious exception).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the only goal is to get these kids doing well in the contest , I agree that VB might have some merit , although there are IDEs for other languages that provide similar tools.However , if the instructor also intends to give these kids skill with something they could actually use later in life , VB seems a poor choice compared to almost all of the others ( Pascal being an obvious exception ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the only goal is to get these kids doing well in the contest, I agree that VB might have some merit, although there are IDEs for other languages that provide similar tools.However, if the instructor also intends to give these kids skill with something they could actually use later in life, VB seems a poor choice compared to almost all of the others (Pascal being an obvious exception).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477174</id>
	<title>Stooge sort</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1268578800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've yet to see a Stooge Sort that works well with n&gt;4.  Fortunately, I've never seen an input size &gt; 4 so it's kind of moot.</p><p>Maybe if they had Moe Stooges this would be a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've yet to see a Stooge Sort that works well with n &gt; 4 .
Fortunately , I 've never seen an input size &gt; 4 so it 's kind of moot.Maybe if they had Moe Stooges this would be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've yet to see a Stooge Sort that works well with n&gt;4.
Fortunately, I've never seen an input size &gt; 4 so it's kind of moot.Maybe if they had Moe Stooges this would be a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476904</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy... can't resist...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268576940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Java's pretty good these days, aside from taking longer to start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java 's pretty good these days , aside from taking longer to start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java's pretty good these days, aside from taking longer to start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477240</id>
	<title>Just my opinion.</title>
	<author>TaggartAleslayer</author>
	<datestamp>1268579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a proponent of teaching C/C++. If you know those, you can learn Python, Java and PHP. Visual Basic is not a consideration nowadays.</p><p>Regardless of language, teach proper logic. A good coder in any language will have a better run time than a bad coder in any language.</p><p>As a person in a place to teach, I truly urge you to teach logic before syntax. Logic before language. It's very important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a proponent of teaching C/C + + .
If you know those , you can learn Python , Java and PHP .
Visual Basic is not a consideration nowadays.Regardless of language , teach proper logic .
A good coder in any language will have a better run time than a bad coder in any language.As a person in a place to teach , I truly urge you to teach logic before syntax .
Logic before language .
It 's very important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a proponent of teaching C/C++.
If you know those, you can learn Python, Java and PHP.
Visual Basic is not a consideration nowadays.Regardless of language, teach proper logic.
A good coder in any language will have a better run time than a bad coder in any language.As a person in a place to teach, I truly urge you to teach logic before syntax.
Logic before language.
It's very important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31491614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31490204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31486232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31507794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31492342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31491208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31543342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31488080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31489862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31501128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31493948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31519964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31533016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31541744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31489696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31483404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31533470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31497704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31572546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31487964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31522796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0015233_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31572546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31490204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31486232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31502160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31501128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31487964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31491614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31488080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31497704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31541744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31492342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31489862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31543342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31533016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31507794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31491208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31522796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31519964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31482200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31489696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31493948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31533470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31483404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31481392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0015233.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31476654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31479490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31478700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31477602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0015233.31480134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
