John Allsup <py...@allsup.co> writes: > Hi,
(John, please don't top-post. Instead, retain only the quoted material you're responding to, and interleave your responses after the points like a conversation. See <URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style>.) > I'm trying to figure out where 'simpler' stops and 'too simplistic' > begins. That's what I call 'absolute simplicity'. That is a rather misleading use of “absolute”, since it is quite subjective and, since it's a point with further simplicity beyond, must by definition not be absolute simplicity. But again, I'll take this as a preference that you're looking for efficiency. > It is a necessity in some areas of learning where even a jot of > inefficiency can be costly (consider a superconducting magnet just > below the critical frequency with massive amps going through, and then > it heats slightly, for a picture of how this 'blow up' happens in the > real world). I have no idea what that analogy would mean for someone learning to program. Are you going to blow up? What is it you're trying to tell us? > This is an exercise in trying to 'touch the wall'. When the > possibilities are not infinite, merely an unimaginably large finite > number, eventually a discrete 'wall' must exists and, thus, ought to > be findable. Can you say more concretely what it is you're trying to learn, and where the teaching resources are not providing what you expect? What is it you expect? -- \ “As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely | `\ upon authority, there is no end to our troubles.” —Bertrand | _o__) Russell, _Unpopular Essays_, 1950 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
