Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Elements of Computer Programming

I've always thought that the basics of computer programming were rather simple. Let me see if I can convey something of that to the non-programmers who read this. The idea isn't to teach a useful skill in any actual language, but to convey the idea of what's going on, in concrete enough elements that you could think about how to do something with those elements, and thus demystify what the computer is doing.

10 print "Grade Averaging Program"
20 print "Enter the student's grades.  Enter -1 when done."
30 grade <- getNumberFromKeyboard
40 if grade < 0 then goto average:
50 grades[numgrades] <- grade
60 numgrades <- numgrades + 1
70 goto loop: 
80 print "Printing grades:"
90 n <- 0
100 sumgrades <- 0
110 print grades[n]
120 n <- n + 1
130 sumgrades <- sumgrades + grades[n]
140 if n < numgrades then goto 100
150 print "Average:" sumgrades/numgrades
160 end

200 n
210 grade
220 numgrades
230 sumgrades
240 grades

The language is one I made up -- an odd blend of BASIC and assembly -- but I hope that it's close enough to English, simple math notation, and intuitive graphics that it can be read and understood even without any experience. Odd bits: the numbers on the left are line numbers, labelling that line of code; they can also be thought of as memory addresses. The colon-ized words ('code:', 'loop:', 'average:') are aliases for the line numbers following them, so 'loop:' means line 30, and 'goto loop:' means "go to line 30". Use of the aliases is optional, as in line 140, which goes to line 100 without bothering with a label. '<-' is an assignment operation, the data on the right is stored in the variable, the memory address, on the left. In the data section, the words aren't instructions, but are labelling that piece of memory. grades is treated as an array, with grades[0] meaning line 240, grades[1] meaning line 250, grades[3] meaning line 270, and so on. The other labels could also be treated as an array, e.g. n[2] would mean line 220. But the way this program is written doing so wouldn't be very meaningful, while regarding 'grades' as an array of a student's grades fits with the rest of the program.

The idea is that computer memory is a big linear array of numerically addressed locations, like mailboxes lining a street. Instructions, lines in a program, are just contents in mailboxes. So is data. One mailbox -- initially the first, line 10 -- is labelled as containing the next instruction. The computer -- the hardware, the CPU -- fetches an instruction from that mailbox, obeys it, then fetches an instruction from the sequentially next mailbox, unless the instruction was a 'goto', which changes the instruction mailbox; repeat. Referring to a mailbox ('n' in 'n + 1') except when on the left of '<-', which modifies the contents. The 'end' instruction tells the CPU to stop, else it might keep on going and start trying to execute the data, which probably wouldn't work well. And yes, it would be possible for the program to modify its own instructions, simply by writing to memory locations before the CPU gets to executing them. This isn't a common practice, though.

This isn't the simplest way to introduce programming, and you'll have to tell me if it's at all effective, but I'm trying this way because THIS IS IT. All of modern programming can be described with what's used above: a numerically addressed array of memory, a fetch and execute cycle of instructions stored in that memory, and an instruction set including basic math operations, comparisons with 'if' instructions branching on those comparisons, 'goto' instructions (or jumps), and special instructions for interacting with the outside world, in this case 'print' and 'getNumberFromKeyboard'. (As opposed to 'getCurrentLocationOfMouse', say). All of Windows, or Photoshop, or some AI program written in a high-level language full of abstract concepts, gets compiled, translated, into these basic elements. (Actually, even more basic elements, where words have to be treated on a character by character basis).

It's not the most fun way to program, and any decent language will give you syntax for at least loops ("do 10 times", "do while this condition is true") and creating functions (blocks of code you can invoke from anywhere), and bigger data types, but you can roll all of that with the basic elements. You can, because we do -- we just usually have a program (the compiler) do so automatically, using the more convenient constructs.

As an example, let me describe the 'print' function the hard way.

10 stringToPrint <- 1000
20 returnAddressStack[returnPointer] <- 50
30 returnPointer <- returnPointer + 1
40 goto print:
50 stringToPrint <- 1030
300 currentChar <- 0
310 if stringToPrint[currentChar] = NULL then goto return:
320 printChar stringToPrint[currentChar]
330 currentChar <- currentChar + 1
340 goto 310
350 returnPointer <- returnPoint - 1
360 goto returnAddressStack[returnPointer]
1000 "Grade Averaging Program", NULL
1030 "Enter the student's grades.  Enter -1 when done.", NULL
10010 returnPointer
10020 returnAddressStack

Here we can see that a procedure (another word for function) is just another block of instructions somewhere, which we can jump to and from. What makes it a procedure is that we store (in returnAddressStack) where we're jumping from, and use that at the end of the 'print' block to know where to jump back to. The reason we need a Stack, and thus a returnPointer, is that procedure can call other procedures, or even themselves; if we used just a returnAddress variable we could only use one procedure at a time, or else lose track of where we should return to.

This is such an important part of programming that most CPUs have special hardware instructions to do the dirty work of returnAddressStack and returnPointer for us. Assembly language programmers still have to load a procedure's arguments, e.g. 'stringToPrint', manually. Useful programming languages devolve that to the compiler as well.

Hmm. In retrospect I'll be surprised if all this text works for what I wanted. Oh well...


( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 2nd, 2006 11:07 pm (UTC)
Maybe it'd help to show what the top code would look like in a less raw form:

print "Grade Averaging Program"
print "Enter the student's grades.  Enter -1 when done."
while (grade <- getNumberFromKeyboard) and (grade >= 0)
  grades[numgrades] <- grade
  numgrades <- numgrades + 1
end while
print "Printing grades:"
sumgrades <- 0
for n from 0 to numgrades
  print grades[n]
  sumgrades <- sumgrades + grades[n]
end for
print "Average:" sumgrades/numgrades

The while and for loops are easier to understand, but break down under the hood into if/goto combinations.

There's a potential bug here, due to something I haven't specified -- can you find it? Hush from the programmers.
Aug. 4th, 2006 03:59 am (UTC)
Hey, I like what you're trying to do. Since you asked for feedback on effectiveness, here is my gut reaction with constructive critisicm: I think that you could make it simpler than this, and have a more simplified version appear as a precursor... for example, all the labels and discussion of line numbers, colons, etc. may get in the way of the simple message. You boldfaced your core stuff, and I think that bit can be presented a bit earlier and with more simple language.

As a concrete example of my suggestion, you have "The idea is that computer memory is a big linear array of numerically addressed locations, like mailboxes lining a street." And you go on to talk about the mailbox metaphor, which I love to use to explain computer memory. But I think you may lose the casual reader after "big linear array". Array is alreayd so computer-ey!

Perhaps you could preface everything by starting with more metaphor and less reliance on jargon, mathematical or computer or otherwise. I might say that "Programming a computer is like writing a recipe for baking a cake. But imagine that the recipe is for a child learning to cook for the first time... so it has to be very explicit and includes every little step, even those that adults might take for granted...." etc etc.

Of course I like how you give an example early, but I think you should start with a simpler code example; maybe just inputting grades and displaying the average without the redisplay of the entered grades...

Overall, I liked your concise description! I'm thinking tat when I've wanted to teach someone about programming, I'd want to start with a very small encapsulated version, and only work up to more general ideas if they are interested enough to continue. Maybe Doug's exercise of summarizing into smaller and smaller summaries would help here, until you get a sentence or so that captures the essence of "How does programming work?"

saracariad just yestserday asked me something along these lines, and I didn't even start to explain... I see how your "basics for non-programmers" would be really nice to have available!
Aug. 6th, 2006 06:54 am (UTC)
Like my fractions primer I'd like feedback from the intended audience, sigh.

You can see I put in a simpler version in the comment. I'd actually started simple, with a little countdown/blastoff program, then the simple grading one. But it bugged me that my intended point was to be "and this is all you need" meaning math and IF/GOTO and variables and I/O, when that isn't true, you also need memory you can address more systematically than with variables, meaning array, and then I thought I'd try to roll everything up into an assembly-like picture. Vs. a traditional stepped sequence of Hello World, loops, etc. which yes, does make sense; I thought this might be fasted if it worked.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )


Damien Sullivan

Latest Month

August 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner