On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:51 PM, E.W. <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think it is generally the case that with enough hacking you can accomplish > nearly any task with any tool, but some tools are more geared towards > performing certain tasks. I like to stress to brand new students that the > question is never "can" but "should" or "which is easier?" when it comes to > this kind of thing. Sometimes even a brutal hack is more efficient or > mentally easier to accomplish than fighting to learn something in a new > language that you aren't comfortable with. "I know this could be better R, > but I need to get the job done. [translation: please don't judge my for > loops]" is a completely sane and normal reaction. Programming communities or > those offering consultations shouldn't turn into handwriting judges.
That's an interesting observation. Over time, I have developed a strong instinct to ask "is this the best way to do what I'm doing? Could I do it in a clearer and more efficient way". I feel rather strongly that this makes me a better scientist and user of code. Of course it might not be the most efficient way to get the job done - depending on how I define the job. But even when I do have to go fast, and I am prototyping, this instinct helps me step back and think harder. The big question is - do we do more good teaching people a broad range of things that they can use, or by teaching them how to be skeptical and careful readers and writers of code? I'm naturally lazy, so I generally need more help with being skeptical, and that certainly influences the way I want to teach. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
