On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:58:43 -0700, "Owen Densmore" <[email protected]> said: > I'm with Nick. Why? We have to separate understanding *architecture* > from implementation. > > Architectural studies look at the system from a 50,000 foot view, so > that the student can understand how the whole system works. > > Implementation studies look at how a practitioner would, on the job, > build part of a system. > > Very different issues.
I would love to argue this with you as I am in almost complete disagreement. How would you regard the Agile belief in "emergent architecture?" The 'breadth first' idea has little to nothing to do with architecture in my opinion. > > > So I'd not mind taking a class that assumed the implementation used > within the class was not mainstream. That it left the student with > very broad understanding of how computing works. Sure it'd be great > to teach where you got both: understanding and practical skills. I'm > not sure its possible. I sure hope it is - otherwise I have been fooling myself for a long time. > > Re: Ruby -- It really does not cut it. I probably agree - but can 100,000 avid users be wrong? I included it in my list only on the basis of popularity for Web-only development. > > So GLASS it is for now, right? I think I'd prefer Javascript, but at > least I understand the struggle. You will get Javascript - I promise - as we integrate the Lively Kernel into Squeak. davew ============================================================ 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
