browns@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Stan Brown) (02/21/91)
In article <s64421.666449403@zeus>, s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes: > On the contrary. Too many textbooks and instructors in the more > esoteric universities deliberately teach programming in an etherial > style which bears no relation to the actual world. Thank heavens > C books avoid this. In fact, and this is my main point, IT IS > VERY MUCH HARDER TO START WITH THE ABSTRACT AND MOVE TO THE CONCRETE > THAN TO START WITH THE CONCRETE AND MOVE TO THE ABSTRACT. That is, > teach by examples! THEN show the principles behind them. This works for you; great. But it works best the other way for me. A few months ago, the last time we had the which-C-book-is-best religious argument, I pointed out that there are D-type and I-type thinkers. D-type (deductive) like to see the principles, then maybe one example. They thrive on working out the implicatuions of general principles stated as concisely as possible. I-type (inductive) prefer the style you mention above. Nerither is right or wrong. It is most effective for D-type persons to have D-type books (like K&R) and D-type instructors, and for I-type persons to have I-type books and instructors. My observation is that the majority (80-90%) of persons are I-type. Since I'm D-type, when I wrote manuals I wrote D-type manuals and couldn't understand why sso many people didn't read what was right there on the page. It was years later that I realized the problem: I was writing D-type manuals for an audience of predominantly I-type readers. It's okay to have these religious discussions, but let's remember that there is not One True Answer (TM). Hey--this is all my opinion, nobody else's. Rely on it at your peril. email: browns@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA +1 216 371 0043
jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) (02/21/91)
browns@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Stan Brown) writes: :In article <s64421.666449403@zeus:, s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes: :: On the contrary. Too many textbooks and instructors in the more :: esoteric universities deliberately teach programming in an etherial :: style which bears no relation to the actual world. Thank heavens :: C books avoid this. In fact, and this is my main point, IT IS :: VERY MUCH HARDER TO START WITH THE ABSTRACT AND MOVE TO THE CONCRETE :: THAN TO START WITH THE CONCRETE AND MOVE TO THE ABSTRACT. That is, :: teach by examples! THEN show the principles behind them. :This works for you; great. But it works best the other way for me. :A few months ago, the last time we had the which-C-book-is-best religious :argument, I pointed out that there are D-type and I-type thinkers. :D-type (deductive) like to see the principles, then maybe one example. :They thrive on working out the implicatuions of general principles :stated as concisely as possible. I-type (inductive) prefer the style :you mention above. :Nerither is right or wrong. It is most effective for D-type persons to :have D-type books (like K&R) and D-type instructors, and for I-type :persons to have I-type books and instructors. :My observation is that the majority (80-90%) of persons are I-type. :Since I'm D-type, when I wrote manuals I wrote D-type manuals and :couldn't understand why sso many people didn't read what was right there :on the page. It was years later that I realized the problem: I was :writing D-type manuals for an audience of predominantly I-type readers. I could very well be wrong, but I think that most programmers are D-type. If so, it follows that D-type books are the best to use in teaching programming to programmers and the I-type books are best for teaching "concepts of programming" to non-programmers. Ergo, the choice of book should be based on which group of students are the target. -- Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself. Ma Bell (703)683-9090 (UUCP: ...{uupsi,vrdxhq}!pbs!npri6!jerry
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (02/22/91)
In article <1175@TALOS.UUCP> jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) writes: > :My observation is that the majority (80-90%) of persons are I-type. > I could very well be wrong, but I think that most programmers are > D-type. Look, this argument is silly. If you spend some time on examples and then present the general concepts, everyone will be happy, though if there are indeed any ``D-type'' people then they won't get anything out of the examples. If you *don't* present examples, you'll be screwing over all ``I-type'' people. So use examples. This discussion is no longer relevant to C. ---Dan