Jochem:
Foo, Bar & Qux are used all over the place in IT in the same way
'Person A' and 'Person B' might be used when talking about marketing
demographics theory.
they are shortcuts to avoid having to think up realworld examples,
why would we want to do that?
1. real world examples are full of edge cases
2. real world examples are usually complicate the underlying theory
3. real world examples often sidetrack the 'learnee's attention away from the
core issue.
4. good real world examples are difficult to come up with
5. we are programmers, shortcuts is a way of life :-)
I'm not saying that foo is not used all over the place in IT. I'm
simply saying, the practice of using foo adds another level of
abstraction for me -- apparently your mileage varies.
Why would you want to do that? You don't have to, nor do you have to
want to -- it's just a simpler way to convey information in teaching.
To respond to your points:
First, the edge case for foo IS abstraction. After all, foo is an
abstraction, right?
Second, real world examples simplify the underlying theory. That's
probably why grade school teachers use "Apples" instead of "foo" when
teaching math.
Third, real world examples provide "familiar substance" and an easy
"frame of reference" for students trying to learn the underlying core
issue. Remember, the core issue should be the topic of focus, not
"What's a foo?".
Fourth, good real world example are difficult to come up with, but
they are worth it -- IF - you're trying to teach.
Fifth, shortcuts are a way of life AFTER you learn the way. You don't
provide back-road directions for someone who's never been there
before.
I've had conversations like this with Math professors. The only good
argument I've heard for abstraction instead of providing real world
examples was when it was not possible to find a real world example.
There are many topics in theoretical math where real world examples
don't exist. But, in programming, I can't think of a single one --
unless you're programming theoretical math. Everything we do is to
solve a real world problem, is it not?
with regard to 'Christian Wenz' comment about imagination, try this
(imagination and creativity are bedfellows):
http://www.well.com/~jct/ugbio/ugbconv.htm
It was a long read, but if Krishnamurti had obtained his MS in
Science instead of Philosophy perhaps his perspective would have been
different, or at least rooted in science.
IMO , much of what he has to say is utter nonsense. It's a form of
double-speak that's objecting to the status quo by providing an
eastern-like "one-hand clapping" philosophy as a no-substance
alternative. For example, he says:
"All the questions are born out of the answers. But nobody wants the
answers. The end of the question is the end of the answer. The end of
the solution is the end of the problem. We are only dealing with
solutions and not with the problems."
That's just circular nonsense -- it contains no real value. It leaves
the mind ranging for substance. It's like looking at a plot of random
points and the mind, trained to derive order by differentiation,
see's linear patterns where none are supported by the data.
<only-read-this-if-you-have-seen-the-malibu-commercial>
not to worry - growing up generally entails becoming a 'complicated
little man' ;-)
</only-read-this-if-you-have-seen-the-malibu-commercial>
That makes more sense that the previous article. Besides, I can
relate far too well - non sum qualis eram.
tedd
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sperling.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
