“Making Java programming easy” is not one specific task!
550 karma · joined September 3, 2011
“Making Java programming easy” is not one specific task!
There’s no editing functionality, just a preview of the page.
This happens in any field with significant theory. A chess grandmaster isn’t any more of a “living database” than a mathematician, for example, who spends about twenty years learning theory (from elementary school to Ph.D.) before working on original research. And in chess, just as in mathematics, learning theory is not as simple as memorization.
> Once chess becomes "who is the better database" it stops being intellectually or practically useful as far as I am concerned.
A player who knows some theory will always have an advantage over an amateur, but when the difference in players’ knowledge of theory is negligible, as it is in the top levels, it is strategy and tactics that win games.
I do understand your frustration, as an amateur chess player myself. But telling yourself that you would be a better player if you just spent some time memorizing opening lines is just a cop-out. That won’t make you a better player, it will just put you on equal ground with your opponents.
Edit: heh, coincidentally today’s game speaks for itself.
What does it mean to be a DSL for “the web”?
Learning the basics of any skill can help you, but it’s up to an individual whether he wants to spend his time picking up plumbing, car repair, programming, etc., or just focus on moving further in whatever his own field is.
Not at all. Even deriving the formula for the sum of the first n positive integers is something that requires problem solving skills while not requiring more than school-level maths.
Also, given that CS is a part of math, you can't avoid it if you want to learn some mental structures [...] by all means study math, but catching a bit of CS knowledge and programming skills at some point should be a natural consequence of it.
Huh? Physics is more a part of mathematics than computer science is. And I don’t understand what you mean by “mental structures”.
we actually DID invent a new way of thinking in the last 100 years
Could you explain what you mean by that?
Anyway, my point was that you can’t argue that everyone should learn programming just because it’s a way to learn problem solving.
Mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, chemists, economists, statisticians, engineers, meteorologists, actuaries, biologists, accountants, etc.
I think people who want to learn to program are learning already. The right analogy would be teaching everyone cooking in elementary school as a required subject, together with reading, writing and mathematics.
I definitely support the notion that everyone should learn problem solving skills, but people can take different paths than programming: mathematics, natural sciences, and even chess, for example.
As Richard Rusczyk, founder of Art of Problem Solving, says, “We use math to teach problem solving because it is the most fundamental logical discipline. Not only is it the foundation upon which sciences are built, it is the clearest way to learn and understand how to develop a rigorous logical argument. [...] This is not to say that those who cannot do math cannot solve problems. There are many paths to strong problem solving skills. Mathematics is the shortest.” [1]
And there have been many studies on the relationship between chess and problem solving, including this one by Ferreira and Palhares [2].
[1] http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/Papers/ProblemS... [2] http://www.math.umt.edu/tmme/vol5no2and3/TMME_vol5nos2and3_a...
[1] http://adeel.github.com/pump/manual.html [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2810373 [3] http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/7/27/the-pluggable-pipedream/
It sounds like you are under the impression that success in mathematical olympiads is connected with success in mathematical research. It’s actually relatively rare for IMO winners to go on to become successful researchers, because the skills involved, while not completely disjoint, are not exactly the same either.
No...
[1] Ring: https://github.com/mmcgrana/ring
[2] ClojureDocs: http://clojuredocs.org
[3] Pump: http://adeel.github.com/pump