> No doubt it could be construed as either-or rather than both-and. Having
> relevant media to support professional development is necessary. However, it
> seems rather too easy to end up with a cultural reduction toward the
> technological means rather than the ends (and thus we end up
Hi Raoul,
No doubt it could be construed as either-or rather than both-and. Having
relevant media to support professional development is necessary. However,
it seems rather too easy to end up with a cultural reduction toward the
technological means rather than the ends (and thus we end up
>
> To me, a 1000-line module is a God Class. A 3000-line module is a complete
>> disaster.
>>
>> Accepted best practice is that a file too big to view on your screen is
>> too long. Optimum file size is probably under 30 lines.
>>
> Really? I've heard that said about *function* size, but not
On 28/04/16 7:15 PM, Dan Sumption wrote:
This is a subject that interests me greatly, and I'm keen to hear
people's views on it.
My perspective is that of a working software developer (albeit with a
background in psychology), not an academic. I have no experience of
ML, and have worked
I'm still a practitioner, to the extent a consultant can be.
Visualations need to be derived from the code and not the annotations since
I've never met a programmer who voluntary updated their JavaDoc or other
annotation.
I've seen literate code on rare occasions, mostly from teams doing
I am not sure if it matters for you but how about Standard ML modules?
- Gergely
On Thursday, 28 April 2016, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> I've been thinking for some time of writing a paper with the
> title "Why can't I see the structure?" based on the idea that
> modules