23 Nov
2007
23 Nov
'07
9:58 a.m.
On Thursday 22 November 2007 18:48, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 22 Nov 2007 at 23:09, Tony Duell wrote:
This reminds me of folks I used to run into back in the day that considered
themselves "programmers" -- in dbase!
I find such abstractions to be a major hinderance
to learning, it comes
under the 'oversimiplifcaiton' I mentioned last night. There are too many
books at the 'this processr, this memory, this smack on head' level, and
I have never been able to learn anything useful from a book that seems to
suggest these various units operate on some kind of deep magic that I'll
never understand.
Good point. There is the concept of "depth" of understanding. Many
people who regard themselves as programming professionals would be
lost without an operating system. Some would be lost without an
assembler. And, sad to say, some would be lost without some sort of
Java facility. For some, that's not sufficient. Understanding
how a disk drive
works or what goes on over a TCP/IP connection is essential to them.
Some of us actually enjoy that sort of thing and some just want to be able to
use the end result, or maybe tweak it a bit.
Beginning with a battery and a lamp, then moving to
experimenting
with semiconductors, then developing logic elements and finally,
understanding the "guts" of a computer creates a depth of
understanding upon which to build.
So my vote is for starting simple and building.
Works for me, but then I suspect we're all a bunch of technophiles in here
anyway...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin