On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Richard O'Keefe <o...@cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> I wonder if the question of "intuitiveness" could be studied
> at the level of arithmetic rather than programming as a whole.
> For example, Smalltalk counts as OO-imperative, but has
> bignum and ratio arithmetic built in and standard: 6/4 gives
> the answer 3/2, not 1.5. Java _has_ bignum arithmetic, but
> doesn't let you use ordinary notation with it. And so on.
seems like there is a range of essential vs. inessential mental
complexities that one has to grok to really grok a given programming
language, this whole "how close to Real Math does it come" being an
so maybe we can study "intuitiveness" of a programming language in
terms of the things which are general problem-solving issues vs.
issues about a particular concrete implementation. (in reality i think
as jef raskin used to say that 'intuitive' is b.s. and is more just
another word for 'familiar'.)
e.g. a particular paradigm (e.g. imperative) makes sense to a given
individual, but then they get totally tripped up by the horribly
non-standard vs. math details (cf. limits on ranges of values).