D in the ix magazine about "programming today"

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> >  - It has to be compiled to genuine executable code. The psychological
> > weight of "knowing" what your code does, as opposed to a diffuse wish
> > "associated with your code to be interpreted, depending on the
> > interpreter at hand [as opposed to actually disassembling the executable
> > and seeing for yourself the actual result!]", simply can't be
> > underestimated. (I've really seen the difference with my students -- and
> > how they've later fared in this arena.)
> When I learned programming, I never "got it" until I learned assembler
> and started comparing the language source code with the assembler
> emitted by the compiler.

I know what you're saying.  In general I never feel like I really "get" anything
until I understand it on multiple levels of abstraction.  For example, it took me
forever to understand object-oriented programming.  The semantics just seemed too
arbitrary.  What made me finally get it was:

1.  Reading about design patterns (moving up a level of abstraction).
2.  Understanding vtables and function pointers (moving down a level of abstraction).