This very interesting discussion has contained two points that I'd like to
return to.
1) Nomenclature: are we going to refer to 'plans' or 'schemas' ? The
plan-word regularly causes confusion. Shall we switch?
2) Derek M Jones wrote on 1/5/01 4:02 pm:
> I am beginning to think that program understanding does not exist.
> A program is a knowledge base that people learn. Complex ones are harder
> to learn about than simpler ones, hence my interest in reducing complexity.
I like the switch from understanding to learning. It de-emphasizes the idea
of grasping the whole 'meaning' of a program, all at one go, and brings out
a picture of incremental growth, with islands of understood parts and dark
areas where the program is doing something that is still mysterious.
You folk who do real programming, or at least associate with real
programmers (unlike me), what is your view of this?
Thomas Green
----
T. R. G. Green also at:
preferred postal address: Computer-Based Learning Unit
Oriel House, 27 Allerton Park, University of Leeds
Leeds LS7 4ND, U.K. Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.
0113-226-6687 (tel)
0113-226-2751 (fax)
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~thomas.green
- Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss
To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce
To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help
This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
