22 Nov
2007
22 Nov
'07
3:48 p.m.
On 22 Nov 2007 at 23:09, Tony Duell wrote:
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.
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.
Cheers,
Chuck