Pamela McCorduck wrote: > Marcus and I heard a different talk. I liked very much what Wing had > to say about computational thinking. She didn't say this must replace > all other kinds of thinking, nor did she say computing is the answer > to everything. She seemed to me to offer a set of tools, mental and > metal, that can address a bunch of problems we've always thought were > intractable. Will there be stupid applications? Not for the first > time in human history. What I found grating was just the later remark about the "distorted lens of computer hardware and APIs" (which Pete said but maybe it came from someone else -- I wasn't at the talk). Designing good software interfaces is not easy, and he billions Intel, TSMC, IBM, etc. spend on CPU architecture, validation and photolithography processes suggest that more than a little thought has gone into these hardware designs too.
As far as I can tell it is not meaningful to parameterize the design of a programming language to personality type. I'd say the main relevant "reality of human thought" is not personality, but that all programmers must struggle with small, fragile short term memory constraints. So, I'd say techniques for improving computational thinking are welcome and needed, even by people in the field. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
