On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Bob La Quey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bob La Quey wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I suppose you could argue that computers are extremely poor
> > > learners so that is why they are hard to teach. As far as
> > > I am concerned that simply stretches the metafor to the
> > > breaking point. Human based metaphors for programming or
> > > computing mislead more often then enlighten.
> > >
> >
> > Sometimes. However, a computer is *truly* stupid. Programming a computer
> > is explaining things to a very obedient, but very dumb automaton.
>
> So is that what you consider teaching in this case?
>
> You have just said that teaching a bright student is hard.
>
> Now you are saying also that teaching a dumb student (a computer)
> is also hard. I am getting the feeling that you are arguing
> "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." for your metaphor.
>
> I am _not_ buying that argument :)
So I do not buy the teaching metaphor but I draw from this
exchange the notion that a metaphor may be useful.
Here are a few:
1) Construction Industry => Architecture
2) Teaching => Explicit elaboration of details
3) Sculpture => Organic evolution from raw materials
4) Machining => Building using a collection of tools
closely related to 1)
I am torn between 3) and 4) as a favorite but lean towards 3).
Perhaps we can generate a list of metaphors then work through
them. Feel free to recast my => etc. to suit your views. I note
that no single metaphor is a perfect fit and that they overlap
each other.
BobLQ
> BobLQ
>
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
