Can I perhaps pre-empt a pile of responses in this soon-to-be-long thread with
my following meta-response:
"I think you should use because . In particular I've run into problems with because . You may also
want to take into account which isn't handled too well by .
Disclaimer: This worked
Russel Winder writes:
>As a way of killing what could have been an interesting thread, potentially
>full of people's experiences and reasons for choices, and not involving too
>much prejudice and advocacy research, this appears to have been very
>successful.
As a way of pointing out that this ex
Lorin Hochstein writes:
>Does anybody know if there has been any empirical research that shows that
>younger computer-using professionals (accountants, scientists, engineers)
>really do implicitly trust the output of computer programs more than
>experienced computer users? e.g., Is years of compu
Derek M Jones writes:
>Can anybody do better?
As a very nonspecific reply, I assume people here are aware of the Daily WTF,
http://thedailywtf.com/?
Peter.
Kevlin Henney writes:
>In other words, your corner case has a corner case.
And they let children play with this stuff?
Peter.
--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt
charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
"Richard O'Keefe" writes:
>Well in that case, perhaps the language to start with should be Haskell...
Teaching programming by starting people on Haskell is like teaching ESOL
(English for non-English speakers) by starting them on Klingon [0].
Peter.
[0] For those unfamiliar with it, it's been
