Miles Fidelman <[email protected]> writes: > Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: >> No, no, no. That's the point of our discussion. There's a need to >> increase "computer"-literacy, actually "programming"-literacy of the >> general public. >> >> The situation where everybody would be able (culturally, with a basic >> knowing-how, an with the help of the right software tools and system) to >> program their applications (ie. something totally contrary to the >> current Apple philosophy), would be a better situation than the one >> where people are dumbed-down and are allowed to use only canned software >> that they cannot inspect and adapt to their needs. > > As fond as I am of the days of Heathkits and homebrew computers, do we > really expect people to build their computers, or cars, or houses, or > even bicycles? Specify and evaluate, maybe repair, but build? > (Though the new DIY movement is refreshing!).
This is a totally different and unrelated question. >> Furthermore, beside the need the general public has of being able to do >> some programming, non-CS professionals also need to be able to write >> programs. > > I guess the question for me is what do you/we mean by "programming?" > To me, it's about analyzing a problem, designing and algorithm, then > reducing that algorithm to running code. Being facile in one language > or another seems less important. We agree. > Or put another way, what's important in math are "word problems," not > the multiplication tables. Agreed too. > It's about thinking mathematically, or algorithmically. Yes. > Just one man's opinion, though. Two men. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
