if i skimmed + parsed the paper correctly, it seems like the message
is: this is how people talk about programming, and thus we should make
our programming systems support those forms of thinking. but i have an
alternate hypothesis: given how bad people claim software ends up
being, perhaps the paper is showing us what forms of thinking re:
programming to avoid. which would then lead to the question of what
thinking should be used instead? vaguely like the issue between
s1/intuition vs. s2/formal thinking.

(i don't mean to say that there is something wrong with supporting
different mental models. but i wonder which mental models are
right/wrong for a given programming issue.)

thanks for any thoughts.

Reply via email to