Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:22:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.663.1358570579.2939.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=70.196.110.21; posting-account=h3aEwQoAAACiuqX-oR3gvCVFm8lLHoWj
References: <2e694a98-8a50-472e-89a0-92212a00464b@googlegroups.com> <50F96FCE.8020003@it.uu.se> <mailman.636.1358526960.2939.python-list@python.org> <e650bfaa-f0c9-42e9-b8db-60813b9c8a30@googlegroups.com> <86b70a14-3b24-45c8-a7b1-c435b5779f0f@googlegroups.com> <mailman.663.1358570579.2939.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Beginner Tutorials
From: Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com>
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <mailman.669.1358576550.2939.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 119
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:37058

On Friday, January 18, 2013 10:36:09 PM UTC-6, Evan Driscoll wrote:
> I have only skimmed this thread and so am unsure exactly what is being
> protected against casual copy/paste, but at least on its face I would
> *vehemently* disagree with your statement.

Well if you skim just a wee bit more you will see how i took a view from bo=
th sides of the argument :)

> There are at least two significant problems with it. First you ignore
> short-term pressures.=20

I think we can all understand short term pressures (especially those among =
us who actually work for a living) however, cheating not only harms the che=
ater, but also degrades the value of the education that the fellow students=
 worked honestly to achieve -- that's my real beef.

> But the bigger problem is that -- while you are right that programming
> is problem solving -- doing problem solving is probably not why most
> people got into it. At least personally, I got into it because I liked
> making stuff.=20

Is not "making stuff" a form of problem solving? You may not enjoy writing =
code because it solves a real world tangible problem (like a calculator for=
 solving math equations or a spreadsheet for organizing data, or flight con=
trol software... wait, don't use python for the last one!) but the "act" of=
 creating anything involves solving problems, yes?=20

 * What am i making?
 * What language provides the tools i need?
 * How will it interface with the world?
 * What will it do? (Even if only to not throw an exception) :)
 * Will it be automated or require input control?
 * GUI or command line?
 * What dependencies will it require?
 * etc...
=20
And that's just the initial draft design phase. These handful of problems h=
ave deeply nested sub-problems hidden below.

But maybe you are referring to the satisfaction you get when witnessing you=
r "creation" in action. Ah, yes. This is a great feeling! Especially when y=
ou've worked for hours tracking some subtle bug because of a bad language f=
eature or poor interface and you almost threw in the towel twenty times, bu=
t /something/ kept you coming back. What was it? Was it the fact that you w=
ould not allow yourself to be defeated? Was it the addiction to the satisfa=
ction you get from creating a program that runs without error and actually =
does something useful? These are the monkeys on the back of every good prog=
rammer.=20

> If someone is attracted to the field because they go "oh
> hey I can program the next video game!" that doesn't automatically mean
> that they won't be good at it, but it may be that the problem-solving
> aspect of it is an acquired taste.

Like these people you mention, my initial interest was very specific. I nee=
ded to create a few tools for myself, and i thought that would be the exten=
t of my programming. But after writing a few apps i was hooked! And as i pr=
ogressed writing more and more code, i became more and more addicted. Codin=
g actually transformed the way i interpret the world. I am constantly looki=
ng for consistency, logic, intuitiveness in every interface around me. That=
 could be my car, my toaster, whatever. But most importantly, programming h=
as honed my problem solving skills to razor perfection! Especially OOP. Whi=
ch can be transformed into many problem domains.

I think a lot of energetic and naive people get attracted to writing code f=
rom games, however, once they start up the steep learning curve without an =
ability to problem-solve (or a good starter language like python), they get=
 frustrated and quit. These people cannot problem-solve themselves out of a=
 wet paper bag!=20

And i think a good programmer, along with being a great problem solver, is =
a bit of a risk taker. I mean, how else are you going to learn without taki=
ng risks. An infinite recursion here, a segfault there... accidentally used=
 rmdir on your porn folder, oops! It's all part of cutting teeth.

Another trait of the programmer, an innate sense of curiosity. A good litmu=
s test is to offer a complicated software application to a group of people =
of which none have used before and all are unfamiliar with.=20

Then, see who becomes proficient with the interface. That's the subgroup wh=
o will make great programmers! While the dummies start out reading the manu=
al, the natural problem solvers will jump head first into the interface and=
 attempt to intuit every command.=20

When, after exhausting all there comprehensive abilities, they don't unders=
tand a certain feature, then and *only* then do they consult the docs. And =
sometimes, the doc are just insufficient anyways.=20

But the point is, the true problem solver discovers his own weaknesses, tak=
es mental note of them, and then methodically *DESTROYS* them. Divide and c=
onquer.=20

This is the method by which intelligent beings solve problems.

> As an analogy, I've been rock climbing for several years. There are
> several types of climbing; two of them are top roping, which is roped
> climbing and what you see most people in a climbing gym doing, and
> bouldering, which is climbing routes low to the ground (usually under 3
> meters or so) without a rope. When I started, I basically exclusively
> did top roping. Bouldering seemed... dumb to me, like it was missing the
> point: "the reason you go climbing is to *climb*, and bouldering gives
> you very little of that." :-) But after I was going for a while, getting
> high above the ground became less of why I did it and the challenge of
> figuring out the right movements and such to complete the route started
> being my primary motivation for liking it. And those are things that
> bouldering has in fine measures; in some respects, it does that *better*
> than roped climbing*.
>=20
> (* Arguing about roped climbing vs bouldering might be that community's
> version of "Emacs is better than Vi". :-))

That was a great analogy!

> In other words, why I started climbing is very different from why I
> continued it. And I feel that the same could be said of programming.
> Just because you don't enjoy parts of programming when you're starting
> out doesn't mean that you're a lost cause by ANY means.

I agree completely. However, my condemnation was mainly against cheating.