On Jul 4, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Frank Wales wrote:
Charles Knutson wrote:
I believe there is a taxonomy of four types of people, relative to
professional software construction:
1) Those born to code, who need almost no coaching;
2) Those born capable but in need of training in order to be
William Billingsley wrote:
Consider for a moment if we could identify the cognitive requirements of
a profession, the cognitive abilities of candidates, and could simply
cross-check between them to see if candidate X could achieve proficiency
in profession Y.
I refer you my forthcoming
I just wrote:
Rather than just categories or types, I'd actually propose a spectrum
Did I say 'spectrum'? Apparently, I meant 'Humpy the camel':
http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf
--
Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 01/07/07, Lindsay Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bjorn Reese wrote:
The students used longer titles, such as count number of
occurrences and find if any element is of some sort, whereas the
professionals used short titles, such as count and find.
This could indicate that the looping
Oh, by the way...
A while ago, Mark Guzdial wrote:
[...] If we're agreed that there is no geek gene,
I don't agree with that contention at all, in the
sense that I believe that some people have a knack
for technology that others don't, that that knack is
as much a part of their make up as their
So I would be, frankly, astonished if it could be shown that
*everyone* is equally trainable in programming to a
professional standard, any more than it could be shown that
everyone could learn to be a professional golfer or a
professional artist or a professional mathematician or a
On 3 Jul 2007, at 3:20 am, Lindsay Marshall wrote:
So I would be, frankly, astonished if it could be shown that
*everyone* is equally trainable in programming to a
professional standard, any more than it could be shown that
everyone could learn to be a professional golfer or a
professional
Bjorn Reese wrote:
The students used longer titles, such as count number of
occurrences and find if any element is of some sort, whereas the
professionals used short titles, such as count and find.
This could indicate that the looping constructs belong to the
basic-level category (Rosch,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What we really need is a Drawing on the right side of the
brain for programming.
Lindsay - I like this suggestion. I'd want to sit down and
discuss it over several drinks at PPIG next week, except that a)
PPIG is in Finland, where we won't be able to afford several
-Original Message-
From: Lindsay Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 6/26/2007 4:27 PM
To: Guzdial, Mark; Peter Gutmann; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; discuss@ppig.org; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: PPIG discuss: Programmer education argument-starter of the week
As an (ex) compiler writer and one of the authors of the Camel paper,
I feel impelled to wade in. Except I no longer think I have nothing
interesting to say about understanding compilers: it's fun if you
like it is all.
The Camel paper was written very over-enthustiastically, for which I
How does one prove that some people will *never* learn to program? All
possible approaches
have now been tried so there are no new innovations to develop?
Computer science has only been around for a bit over 50 years. In
evolutionary terms, that's way
too short a time to evolve a
1) If you don't know how computers work, you don't know how
compilers work. (Obviously!)
How is that obvious? I can certainly conceive of knowing how compilers work
without knowing how a computer works - there are processes involved that can be
explained by analogy without referring to
That former group has different motivations, I believe. What motivates those
super-hackers
who become obsessed with code and end up inventing something like Linux? What
motivates them?
... What motivates someone to pick up programming without any previous
background (and
without,
14 matches
Mail list logo
