Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Yes, but the difference is that the background info for mathematics *is*
precise. There is a directly derivable chain from very few, very simple
first principles the whole way through partial derivatives to the
simplification that derives the chain rule you talk about. This is
simply *not true* for programming in general.
Unless you start with Turing machines. Which are just as intractable as
starting with Peano for teaching calculus. :-)
But given that programming *is* mathematics (just sloppily-defined
mathematics), arguing about which is better for teaching math is a bit
silly. By the time your program is as precise as mathematics, it *is*
mathematics.
I'd be happy with "you never know what ambiguities you'll find until you
write it as code". Or "you may never know that you don't understand
something until you try to program it and fail." My objection is more
to the fact that coding something produces something beyond the code,
rather than failure to code pointing out a deficiency. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
