25 Jan
2012
25 Jan
'12
11:02 p.m.
On 5 January 2012 18:09, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2012 10:52 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
All right, this is a fair criticism.
I should not assume that just because I grok certain aspects of
computing, and even of baby-steps use of programming languages, that I
can understand everything. I don't understand everything; I know that
and freely concede it.
So, OK, point taken.
But I am a smart guy - no, honest, really I am - and I am literate,
numerate, I understand the basics (no pun intended) of programming and
so on. I am also a professional
explainer-of-difficult-technical-concepts.
I really do believe that I /should/ be able to get this, but the texts
and so on that I have read make me feel like I am brain-damaged. /The
Little Schemer/ for instance is virtually line-noise from the very
first page.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
I have no idea. I have not programmed in any meaningful sense in over
20y. I would expect so, yes.
?[cited for reference below]
The unreadability of Lisp syntax is widely
agreed, /even by the
creator of Lisp./ It is often cited as one of the main reasons for the
lack of penetration of Lisp in mainstream business computing.
?"Mainstream business computing" is extremely low-tech stuff, done by people
who regularly say "oh, it crashed, that's just how computers are, just do it
again, and reinstall if it doesn't work".
?In architecture and engineering in particular, Lisp is used on a daily
basis by probably 95% of the industry. ?The architect working on my building
plans diddles with AutoLisp regularly, and until we discussed it, he didn't
even realize he was doing any programming!
I have read the first few pages of The Little
Schemer, generally
hailed as the best introduction to Scheme there is, and I found it
completely incomprehensible - and I am a skilled computer professional
with around a quarter century of experience. If I can't follow it, I
really do not believe that a random person with neither interest or
aptitude for it will be able to.
?Please forgive me for jumping in, but I have to speak up here. ?You keep
going on and on about how you've got all this "IT experience" (you
didn't
specifically mention "IT" above, but you have before), and that should make
you more able, not less able, to understand abstract "CS" (as distinct from
"IT") concepts. ?You reinforce what I'm saying by also stating that
you're
not a software developer. ?Wrangling systems and networks, working with
databases, etc etc and whatever else constitutes your day-to-day work life
has jack-point-squat to do with advanced theoretical concepts (with
practical implementations) such as, for example, closures.
?It is my opinion that you should not feel it's unusual that you don't
"get"
that stuff even though you are "a computer professional". ?That's like
saying "I'm a podiatrist, so I work on the human body too...all that stuff
about understanding how neurons work is just bunk, because I don't get it!"
?I'm down with Death Flu(tm), and I'm sure I could've illustrated my point a
bit better above, but I think you get the general gist of what I'm trying to
say. ?The only reason *I* see the difference is because I do
both...otherwise I'd probably not get it either.