Dear all,
I'm a PhD student at the Dept of Computing, Goldsmiths, London UK
supervised by Prof. Geraint Wiggins. By way of introduction here's a
recent paper of mine:
http://doc.gold.ac.uk/~ma503am/writing/nime09.pdf
and my blog:
http://yaxu.org/
I discovered PPIG recently and am enjoying re
hi,
http://www.ppig.org/papers/18th-blackwell.pdf
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
> (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.)
p.s. cf. old approaches to concurrency that cause sturm und drang:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3465.
Raoul,
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, perha
Derek M Jones wrote:
Raoul,
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 softwar
