Greg and Kat’s blog

As many of you know, I’m the most frequent instructor for CMPT 470, Web-based information systems, at SFU. I love teaching the course, but it’s just not possible to do it every semester. In particular, it’s not possible for me to teach it in the spring (Jan-Apr 2012).

So, it will likely be posted as a sessional (contract) instructor position. We have had sessionals do the course in the past, but I reckon I can make things a little more interesting: there’s a good web development community in Vancouver, and there a lot of people who would do a good job with the course. There is also an increasingly-large group of CMPT 470 alumni who have been out there in the world for a few years getting some experience: some of them would be good at this too.

I just have to find somebody and get them to actually apply. So, I’m putting the call out: anybody interested or know anybody who’d be good?

The course (as I approach it) is a survey of web development topics: markup and style, HTTP, server-side programming, client-side programming, architecture/speed/backend stuff, and whatever else I feel like talking about that semester. The big piece of work for the students is a group-based project which makes up a big chunk of their final mark.

Officially the appointment requires a masters degree, but a case can be made for somebody with industrial (and even better, teaching) experience. The course is scheduled in the evenings (Mondays 5:30-8:30) on the Burnaby campus, so shouldn’t interfere too directly with a day job. Pay is around $8500 plus benefits.

Of course, anybody teaching the course is welcome to my lecture notes, assignments, web materials, and anything else I have that would be useful. There’s no official posting yet, but I figure it’s a good time for people to start thinking about it. I’m happy to talk to anybody about the course.

Edit: I should point out that I’m not the one making the hiring decisions. I’m just an interested third party.

I recently had a former CMPT 165 student email me and ask essentially if Python was the best language to learn [first] from a practical/employment standpoint. This was my response, that I think was good and would like to expand on here:

Certainly the traditional view of the world is “C/C++/Java for big projects or where speed matters; higher-level languages like Python/Perl/VB for smaller projects or automation.” Certainly many of my colleagues continue to see the world in this way.

The programming language world has changed in some subtle ways in the last few years and I don’t think that attitude is really valid anymore. If I was starting a big project today (like writing a word processor or something), I would probably start with Python (or something similar): it’s easier to write and get things done and it’s possible to bridge to code in Java or C if you need to.

If I had to honestly summarize the world today, I’d say “C++/Java/C# for big companies who want to make a ‘safe’ choice of programming language; Python/Ruby/JavaScript/Scala/etc on smaller projects where the developers make the choice and want to get things done and enjoy their lives.”

A few footnotes on that: (1) the result is there are probably more Java/C# jobs in the world than other languages; (2) the Python/Ruby/Javascript jobs tend to be in smaller companies and are probably more fun; (3) after you learn to program, learning a new language isn’t nearly as big a deal as learning your first–most of the concepts are always the same.

By “the programming language world has changed in some subtle ways”, I mean mostly:

1. Languages we always though of as “slow” have been made shockingly fast by just-in-time compilers like V8 and PyPy.
2. Mixing languages in a project (e.g. calling C from Python, or using one language’s standard library from another) seems, to me at least, to be an easier and more mainstream thing to do if you need to.
3. Frameworks/libraries are used much more heavily. If you spend 90% of your time calling some GUI library, the speed of your code doesn’t matter much: the speed of the GUI library is what matters. (And, who’s to say the library is written in the same language you’re writing? See 2.)
4. C isn’t the “fast” language anymore. That’s probably more controversial, but basically, C is really good at single-threaded performance, but multithreading and heterogeneous processor environments are a real pain. Today’s reality is that new processors aren’t improving single-treaded speed by very much. Those who want their computation to happen really, really fast seem to be increasingly reaching for computation-specialized tools like Go, OpenCL, or Hadoop. It turns out that the explicitness of C starts to become a burden if you have to smack the mutexes around by hand.

My assertion that “C++/Java/C# for big companies who want to make a ‘safe’ choice” is really just a gut feeling. I understand and even agree with the desire for static typing in a huge project, but I honestly don’t think that’s why companies choose Java or C#. Companies choose these language because they are enterprisey: they are the kind of language that checks all of the CIO’s boxes and have comforting professional certifications that the HR department can look for.

Also, big companies probably think Oracle’s ownership of Java is a good thing. They haven’t reached the conclusion that I (and I suspect many others have): Oracle will slowly strangle the life out of Java until it truly becomes the new Cobol.

So where does that leave us?

You might as well look for a language that’s (1) fun to write, and (2) easy to actually get shit done with. For me that’s Python, but I can certainly accept Ruby, Lua, Scheme, and friends. I could accept PHP and VB (if I had enough drinks in me) or even C# and Java (if you had an explanation grounded in the language design/features and didn’t contain the words “enterprise” or “corporate”).

As of the end of August 2010, I have been employed as a lecturer at SFU for ten years.

On the basis of Peter Norvig’s excellent essay “Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years“, I extrapolate that in the past ten years, I must have learned how to do this thing that I claim to be my profession.

Because I like Norvig’s examples, I will add my own: Queen formed in 1971, and played the Queen Rock Montreal show in 1981. Just look at that performance, just look at it! I’m convinced Freedie was an alien from the planet of excellent stage performers and was exiled for making everyone else look bad.

While I’m not Freddie Mercury, I think I’m doing okay. I have felt my lecturing style change, even within the last year. It’s somehow just easier; more comfortable. I’m more likely to leave a lecture and think “anybody that thinks they could have done that any better can go fuck themselves,” usually on days when I have coffee, which does funny things to my brain.

I still think of myself as a better course designer than actual “lecturer”, but that’s another story.

By the numbers: (all values as close as I can figure without really looking that hard)

• Students taught on campus: 4900
• Students supervised in distance sections: 2200
• Time spent lecturing: 1600 hours, or two straight months
• Time spent watching exams: 220 hours, or one icepick lobotomy
• Sections of CMPT 120: 4
• Sections of CMPT 165: 14 on campus, 17 distance
• Sections of CMPT 470: 13, with 153 project groups
• Projects supervised: 9 (capstone, directed studies, etc.)
• TAs supervised: 125
• Emails sent and received: 150,000 (wild guess)

Okay… I’m tired just looking at that. Must be getting old.

Along with my first offering of CMPT 383, I just finished my 13th offering (!) of CMPT 470. I haven’t changed the backbone of the course much in that time: it mostly feels good to me, and other than moving with shifting web technologies, I haven’t felt the need to change the course style.

But now I’m taking a good hard look at the course. I still like the overall flow, but there are some things I want to change.

I did a survey of the current students to get some feedback, but they lack perspective, having just finished the course. I figure I can get some eyeballs from course alumni here and am looking for some more meaningful feedback.

Question 1: Weekly Exercises and Grading Scheme

When I did CMPT 383, I gave weekly exercises, thinking that they might feel a little bit hand-holdey for an upper-division course. Much to my surprise, they worked better there than they do in 120 and 165: more-senior students are in a much better position to appreciate the micro-lessons that the exercises encapsulate and better understand why they are helpful. It’s also a chance to give problems on everything, not just a few things in major assignments.

I have realized that I want to do weekly exercises in CMPT 470, replacing the three assignments. The problem is: the assignments are worth 30% of the course. The weekly exercises would receive minimal marking and feedback (likely marking scheme: 2=most/everything correct, 1=some stuff done, 0=little/nothing done). With that little “grading”, 30% is too much to give to them: 20% is more reasonable.

So, I have 10% of the final grade to reallocate somewhere. Any suggestions about where an extra 10% of weight should be distributed? (The old grading scheme is online.)

[To give you an idea, I'm imagining that some of the exercises will be like "learn these three important CSS techniques and use each to style this sample page"; "find security holes in this sample mini-app I have created for you"; "pick Rails/Django/whatever and do the tutorial on their site"; "deploy your tutorial code on your group's web server"; "do something with jQuery"]

Question 2: Content

I have certainly done my best to keep with the times, and talk about new web-related topics as they have become relevant. But like I said before: the overall backbone of the course has remained the same.

Are there things that I should have spent more lecture time on than I did? Things that took up too much time?

I definitely want to move JavaScript stuff a little earlier in the course: it deserves to be at least a little more front-and-centre than it has been.

Question 3: Other Stuff?

I have a few other smaller tweaks in mind, and am open to other feedback.

In particular, I plan to (explicitly) open the technology evaluation to a wider array of technologies: JavaScript frameworks, databases. This past semester, I started to realize that the server-side frameworks (Django, Rails, Cake, …) are all fundamentally the same (at the depth that’s possible in the techeval). There are other pieces of technology that are more interesting choices at this point, and they might as well evaluate those.

I’m happy to take any half-baked thoughts on any of this here, or by email.

I have now completed my first offering of CMPT 383, Comparative Programming Languages.

I had forgotten how much work a new course prep is, particularly as I am anal-retentive enough to not be able to make much use of any other instructor’s course materials. Other instructors just do things… wrong. The only way for a course to feel right is to do it my way, for myself. Giving lectures from somebody else’s notes is like wearing somebody else’s underwear: technically probably just fine, but you just feel dirty.

That’s not to say other people who teach the same courses I do do a bad job: they are generally excellent instructors teaching excellent courses. They just do it wrong, is all.

But, looking at my plan for 383, I came in pretty close to the plan. The final balance of topics was more like 6 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 weeks, but that’s astonishingly close for somebody who usually just stops somewhere around the midterm and thinks “does that feel like about half of the material? Okay good.”

Overall, I’m very happy with it. First offerings of a course are supposed to be bumpy and full of things that you wish you could have done better. Honestly, this was one of my favourite course offerings ever: there are tweaks I’d do for my next offering, but all are fairly minor.

Specifics:

• The weekly exercises were (to my mind, at least) a total win. My goal throughout was basically to say “remember that thing I talked about this week? Practice it” and I think it worked for the students. I liked them to the point that I’m planning that every course I teach from now on will have weekly exercises, including 470. (More on 470 in a later post.)
• Some of the more involved examples I put together were among my favourite learning objects ever. (God, I can’t believe I just used the term “learning objects“. I have become everything I hate.)
• I think I actually convinced them that Haskell was practical. Was that irresponsible?
• Prolog sucks, but I’m still convinced it’s a worthwhile exercise.
• The “language concepts” section felt a bit like a laundry list of topics. I don’t know that there’s really any way around that. Maybe I could re-order things a bit so they flow together better.
• The project was interesting for all concerned. I’d probably cut down to three or four language choices in the future, just to keep the TA from losing his mind.
• I’m not particularly happy with the exams, but I’m never happy with my exams.
• Ted was an invaluable sounding board throughout the semester, taking time he didn’t have to listen to my meanderings on the course. Thanks be to Ted, who will do an excellent job teaching the course in the fall. (Excellent, but wrong.)

The feedback I have had from the student side has been very good so far (with the real teaching evaluations still outstanding). I have never before had so many students who had nothing to do with a course talk to me about it. Random students in the hall thought my project was a good idea; everybody and their dog knew about my first assignment; people with friends in the course want to know when I’m teaching it again.

I’ll take that as creating a “buzz” and call it a good thing.

An email I was recently forwarded (a couple of steps removed) from Vinay Deolalikar from HP Labs:

Dear Fellow Researchers,

I am pleased to announce a proof that P is not equal to NP, which is attached in 10pt and 12pt fonts.

The proof required the piecing together of principles from multiple areas within mathematics. The major effort in constructing this proof was uncovering a chain of conceptual links between various fields and viewing them through a common lens. Second to this were the technical hurdles faced at each stage in the proof.

This work builds upon fundamental contributions many esteemed researchers have made to their fields. In the presentation of this paper, it was my intention to provide the reader with an understanding of the global framework for this proof. Technical and computational details within chapters were minimized as much as possible.

This work was pursued independently of my duties as a HP Labs researcher, and without the knowledge of others. I made several unsuccessful attempts these past two years trying other combinations of ideas before I began this work.

Comments and suggestions for improvements to the paper are highly welcomed.

The paper is about 100 pages, and looks serious (but being a decade away from last thinking about complexity, I am unable to give any more useful evaluation than that). I’ll refrain from posting the paper itself.

Deciding P ≠ NP is a Millennium Prize Problem and I don’t think I’d get much argument to say it is the biggest open problem in computing science.

Update: I see someone else Deolalikar has uploaded the paper. I should point out that in the email thread I got, Stephen Cook said “This appears to be a relatively serious claim to have solved P vs NP.”

Update: Huh, slashdotted. I think “broke” the story is a little strong, but anyway… any media wanting comment on this story, I’d suggest my colleagues David Mitchell (whose work was cited by Deolalikar in this paper), Valentine Kabanets, or Pavol Hell (who also do research in this area).

Update 08/09: Richard Lipton is posting excellent commentary in his blog.

I teach at a university. That comes with certain parameters: most of my students are in their late teens or early twenties, the average student is reasonably bright but occasionally unmotivated, and I don’t really have any way to compel students to come to lectures.

I do my best to give interesting, informative, and entertaining lectures. I’m successful enough that most students come most of the time, and that’s awesome.

Sometimes students don’t come to lecture. They don’t need a good reason, and they don’t have to tell me about it. I’m okay with that too: part of being at university is being responsible about that kind of thing and I’m happy to assume that whatever reason they have is a good one.

But what really annoys me is when students feel the need to email me, tell me the stupid reason they didn’t come to lecture, and then ask me to tell them what I covered.

I already spent an hour (or three hours) of my time giving the lecture and they had an opportunity to attend. I put a great deal of time and effort into explaining the material in the best way I can and pointing out the things that I think are important. I did all of this because I think I can actually do a decent job of getting material across in the lecture format and I think the material I’m talking about is important.

These emails leave me with two choices: (1) reduce a carefully-prepared lecture to a pointless list of topics and thus implying that I might as well have read them the textbook, or (2) spending another hour repeating the lecture in email form. Neither one of those is very attractive, but there’s also the third option that I have started to avail myself of: telling the students to shove off.

I’ll say here what I said to my CMPT 165 class last semester: if you miss a lecture, you ask a friend in the class for their notes. If you don’t have a friend in the class, ask the person sitting beside you; if at all possible, try to do this when you are sitting beside someone who you find attractive and offer to buy them coffee in return.

Seriously… do I have to explain everything?

cf. entitlement generation.

I have mentioned here before that I was planning to teach CMPT 383. It ended up being a no-go this semester because of a very productive capstone project team (more on that later).

But, I’m on-deck to teach it in the summer. The class is full; the waiting list is full; must be time to plan a course. After much soul-searching, I have decided there will be three main topics in the course and they will be covered in this order:

Functional programming (and Haskell)

This will be most students’ first introduction to a non-imperative programming paradigm (and associated language). Every little while I think this won’t take long, then I remember the list of things that have to be introduced to get anywhere with Haskell: being really good at recursion, list comprehensions, lazy evaluation, type inference, higher-order functions, and other stuff to be discovered as I try to teach the language.

From my perspective, there are two reasons to be talking about functional programming. First, it’s finding some relevance, probably because people want to parallelize things (e.g. CouchDB). Second, there are important lessons from functional programming that can be transferred to OO programming.

“Language Features”

This section contains the big concepts of the course: type systems (static/dynamic, strong/weak, type coercion, duck-typing, late/early binding, …), interpreted vs compiled, pointers vs references, memory management, reflection, runtime environments, first-class functions, objects, exceptions, mutable/immutable objects, ….

The basic question here is: what are the real differences between the programming languages you have to choose from? How might they affect your choice of language for a project?

Logic programming (and Prolog)

As much as I am aware that Prolog is pretty much confined to old school AI researchers, I still think there’s some value in being exposed to logic programming. It should be possible to translate back to the OO world the idea of expressing a problem as a series of constraints and then looking to satisfy those constraints.

To be fair, this is the chunk I am most unsure of. Part of the reason it comes last is that if anything should fall off the end of a full semester, it’s this.

The exact balance of the topics remains to be seen. I’ll guess 5 weeks, 5 weeks, 3 weeks.

As for getting marks, I am as far as:

• Lab exercises: weekly hour-or-two chances to practice the concrete skills.
• Assignments: like… two of them? One Haskell, one Prolog?
• Project: pick a somewhat obscure language from a list I provide. Explore it by writing a report and some programs with it.
• A midterm and a final exam.

No idea what I’ll ask on the exams. Maybe Warren has some old ones I can look at.

So there it is. Unless I change my mind.

After a simple query from a colleague about the differences between HTML versions, I wrote this. I thought I might as well post it. Everything was from-memory, so there may be some minor errors.

HTML 1 never existed (it was the informal “standard” that the first documentation implied).

HTML 2 was a really minimal initial description of the language. The language was simple because the initial goals were simple. The browser makers made many de facto extensions to this by implementing random stuff.

HTML 3 was an abandoned attempt to standardize everything and the kitchen sink. HTML 3.2 was a really ugly standard that was basically “here’s what browsers accept today.”

Which brings us to modern history…

HTML 4 was an attempt to clean up the language: get rid of the visual stuff and make HTML a semantic markup language again. It included the transitional version (with most of the old ugly stuff) and strict version (as things should be).

HTML 4.01 was a minor change: missed errors and typos.

XHTML 1.0 is HTML 4.01 but with XML syntax: closing empty tags with the slash, everything lowercase, attribute values quotes, etc.

XHTML 1.1 contains some minor changes, but was abandoned in a practical sense because nobody saw any point to the change. XHTML 2.0 was another very ambitious change (non-backwards compatible changes to the language) that was abandoned.

HTML 5 is in-progress of being standardized now. If you ask me, there are two camps driving it. One who thinks “the web is more about more than just simple web pages now: applications and interactivity rule the day” and another who thinks “closing our tags is too hard; I don’t understand what a doctype is: make it easier. Dur.”

As a result, there are some things I like and some things I don’t. I is showing signs of something that will actually be completed and used (unlike HTML 3 and XHTML 2).

Most people don’t know that the HTML 5 standard includes an XHTML version as well. It will be perfectly legal to write HTML 5 with the XML syntax and call it “XHTML 5″.

Addendum: The moral of the story is that I have no intention of teaching HTML 5 anywhere until the standards process is done. For 165 I also need real browser support: no JS/DOM hack to get IE to work, and some defaults in the system stylesheet to let the thing display reasonably without any CSS applied. Even then I will probably teach XHTML 5 because I think it promotes the right habits.

I just got a new netbook: an Asus Eee 1005HA.

As my old tablet got slowly older, I realized that I don’t really have heavy laptop demands: most of my use is a text editor and “hey look at this web page” in lectures. Even when away from the lecture hall, I tend to work primarily in a text editor (for LaTeX, HTML, Python, etc.), Thunderbird, and Firefox. I’m not exactly putting a big strain on the system, and can trade off power for small and light.

As always, there’s a big difference between the average stock setup and what I need to get some work done. Bridging this gap is a hassle, so I’m going to finally record what I need so I can look it up next time.

The new Eee is dual-booting Windows 7 and Ubuntu (Karmic netbook remix). Yay to Asus for shipping with a second “data” partition on the drive that was dead-easy to put Ubuntu on.

I’m open to must-have software suggestions that I missed. I’ll probably add more below as I find stuff I missed.

In Windows

• Firefox
• A text editor, usually Crimson
• WinSCP (or some other SCP and maybe SSH client)
• For 165: Python, GIMP, maybe Inkscape
• TortoiseSVN (if there’s a possibility of development happening)
• ClamWin

In Ubuntu

• rsync (As far as I’m concerned it’s negligent to have an operating system install without rsync.)
• subversion
• sshfs
• ntp
• thunderbird (and thunderbird-gnome-support)
• If I’m going to be downloading pictures from a camera: mmv, jhead, exif, gphoto2, python-pyexiv2, gpsbabel
• ddclient (with a config file like this)

In Firefox

• Delicious Bookmarks
• Flashblock
• QuickJava
• Download Statusbar
• Firebug (if there’s any possibility of webdev on the machine)