Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #22353 > unrolled thread

Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 13:48 -0400
    Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-30 01:56 +0000
      Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 01:37 -0400
        Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-04-01 20:18 -0700
          Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 00:55 -0400
            Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-04-02 22:40 -0700
              Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 08:39 -0400
                Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 06:51 -0700
                  Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-03 15:26 +0100
                  Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-04-04 00:31 +1000
                    Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-04-03 14:46 +0000
                      Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-04-04 00:56 +1000
                      Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-03 16:16 +0100
                      Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Dave Angel <d@davea.name> - 2012-04-03 12:28 -0400
                        Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-04-03 17:21 +0000
                      Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-04-03 12:38 -0400
                      RE: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Phil Runciman <philr@aspexconsulting.co.nz> - 2012-04-04 09:50 +1200
                  Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 12:15 -0400
                    Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 10:13 -0700
                Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-04-04 06:19 +0000
                  Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-04 00:07 -0700
              Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 09:01 -0600
              Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-04-04 01:05 +1000
              Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-04-03 12:35 -0400
              Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 13:17 -0400
                Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 10:25 -0700
                  Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 14:42 -0400
                    Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 22:56 -0700
                  Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-03 23:50 +0100
                Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-04-04 05:49 +0000
              Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-04-03 16:20 -0400
              Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 16:50 -0400
              RE: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Phil Runciman <philr@aspexconsulting.co.nz> - 2012-04-04 10:25 +1200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#22671

On Apr 3, 11:19 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:39:14 -0400, Nathan Rice wrote:
> > Much like
> > with the terminal to GUI transition, you will have people attacking
> > declarative natural language programming as a stupid practice for noobs,
> > and the end of computing (even though it will allow people with much
> > less experience to be more productive than them).
>
> I cry every time I consider GUI programming these days.
>
> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Apple released a product, Hypercard,
> that was a combination GUI framework and natural-ish language programming
> language. It was an astonishing hit with non-programmers, as it allowed
> people to easily move up from "point and click" programming to "real"
> programming as their skills improved.
>
> Alas, it has been abandoned by Apple, and while a few of its intellectual
> successors still exit, it very niche.
>
> I *really* miss Hypercard. Not so much for the natural language syntax,
> as for the astonishingly simple and obvious GUI framework.
>
> To get a flavour of the syntax, see OpenXION:
>
> http://www.openxion.org
>
> and for a hint of the framework, see Pythoncard:
>
> http://pythoncard.sourceforge.net
>
> > Ultimately, the answers to your questions exist in the world for you to
> > see.  How does a surgeon describe a surgical procedure?  How does a chef
> > describe a recipe?  How does a carpenter describe the process of
> > building cabinets?  Aside from specific words, they all use natural
> > language, and it works just fine.
>
> No they don't. In general they don't use written language at all, but
> when they are forced to, they use a combination of drawings or
> illustrations plus a subset of natural language plus specialist jargon.
>
> Programming languages include both specialist grammar and specialist
> semantics. That makes it a cant or an argot.

The "building cabinets" problem is interesting:

  1. To actually build a cabinet, there's a lot of domain knowledge
that's probably implicit in most circumstances.  A carpenter might
tell another carpenter which hinge to use, but they won't have to talk
about why doors need hinges or how to do the assembly.
  2. It's quite common for humans to use computer programs as part of
the design process.
  3. Often, the output of a CAD program (at the file level) is some
sort of vector representation that only describes the end product
(basic dimensions, etc.).

I wonder if there are mini-languages out there that allow you to
describe cabinets in a very descriptive way, where the description
easily translates to the actual steps of building the cabinet, not
just the final dimensions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22605

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Nathan Rice
<nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you miss the part where I said that most people who learn to
> program are fascinated by computers and highly motivated to do so?
> I've never met a BROgrammer, those people go into sales.  It isn't
> because there aren't smart BROmosapiens (sadly, there are), they just
> couldn't give two shits about computers so programming seems like a
> colossal waste of time to them.

I have never met the brogrammer stereotype.  I have also never met the
non-brogrammer stereotype of nerdy solitude (well, maybe once).
That's all these things are -- stereotypes.  Real programmers are much
more complex.

> Computers require you to state the exact words you're searching for as
> well.  Try looking again, and this time allow for sub-categories and
> synonyms, along with some variation in word order.

Lazy troll.  You made the claim.  The onus is on you to provide the evidence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22606

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> Real programmers are much more complex.

Are you saying that some part of all of us is imaginary??

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22616

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:05:49 +1000, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:

> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Real programmers are much more complex.
> 
> Are you saying that some part of all of us is imaginary??
>
	At least half of me is genetically engineered wolf  (though he seems
to have stopped aging five years ago <G>)
http://home.earthlink.net/~baron.wulfraed/wr_biog.htm

	Will that qualify?

-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
        wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22621

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Nathan Rice
> <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Did you miss the part where I said that most people who learn to
>> program are fascinated by computers and highly motivated to do so?
>> I've never met a BROgrammer, those people go into sales.  It isn't
>> because there aren't smart BROmosapiens (sadly, there are), they just
>> couldn't give two shits about computers so programming seems like a
>> colossal waste of time to them.
>
> I have never met the brogrammer stereotype.  I have also never met the
> non-brogrammer stereotype of nerdy solitude (well, maybe once).
> That's all these things are -- stereotypes.  Real programmers are much
> more complex.

I have never met a programmer that was not completely into computers.
That leaves a lot unspecified though.

>> Computers require you to state the exact words you're searching for as
>> well.  Try looking again, and this time allow for sub-categories and
>> synonyms, along with some variation in word order.
>
> Lazy troll.  You made the claim.  The onus is on you to provide the evidence.

I reserve the right to be lazy :)

As part of my troll-outreach effort, I will indulge here.  I was
specifically thinking about some earlier claims that programming
languages as they currently exist are somehow inherently superior to a
formalized natural language in expressive power.

I think part of this comes from the misconception that terse is better
(e.g. Paul Graham's thoughts on car/cdr), which doesn't take into
account that your brain compresses frequently occurring English words
VERY efficiently, so they actually take up less cognitive bandwidth
than a much shorter non-word.  This behavior extends to the phrase
level as well; longer phrases that are meaningful in their own right
take up less bandwidth than short nonsensical word combinations.

On the semantic side, most people already understand branched
processes and procedures with conditional actions pretty well.  People
"program" other people to perform tasks constantly, and have been
doing so for the entirety of our existence.  The problem occurs when
programming language specific semantic artifacts must be considered.
These artifacts are for the most part somewhat arbitrary, or you would
see them frequently in other areas, and they wouldn't confuse people
so much.  I think the majority of these relate to how the computer
operates internally - this is the stuff that really turns most people
off to programming.

The crux of my view is that programming languages exist in part
because computers in general are not smart enough to converse with
humans on their own level, so we have to talk to them like autistic 5
year-olds.  That was fine when we didn't have any other options, but
all the pieces exist now to let computers talk to us very close to our
own level, and represent information at the same way we do.  Projects
like IBM's Watson, Siri, Wolfram Alpha and Cyc demonstrate pretty
clearly to me that we are capable of taking the next step, and the
resurgence of the technology sector along with the shortage of
qualified developers indicates to me that we need to move now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22623

All this futuristic grandiloquence:

On Apr 3, 10:17 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The crux of my view is that programming languages exist in part
> because computers in general are not smart enough to converse with
> humans on their own level, so we have to talk to them like autistic 5
> year-olds.  That was fine when we didn't have any other options, but
> all the pieces exist now to let computers talk to us very close to our
> own level, and represent information at the same way we do.  Projects
> like IBM's Watson, Siri, Wolfram Alpha and Cyc demonstrate pretty
> clearly to me that we are capable of taking the next step, and the
> resurgence of the technology sector along with the shortage of
> qualified developers indicates to me that we need to move now.

needs to be juxtaposed with this antiquated view

> I would argue that the computer is the tool, not the language.


... a view that could not be held by an educated person after the
1960s -- ie when it became amply clear to all that the essential and
hard issues in CS are about software and not hardware

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22625

>> > A carpenter uses his tools -- screwdriver, saw, planer --to do
>> > carpentry
>> > A programmer uses his tools to to programming -- one of which is
>> > called 'programming language'
>>
>> > Doing programming without programming languages is like using toenails
>> > to tighten screws
>>
>> I would argue that the computer is the tool, not the language.
>
> "Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about
> telescopes" -- E W Dijkstra
>
> Here are some other attempted corrections of the misnomer "computer
> science":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science#Name_of_the_field

I view "computer science" as applied mathematics, when it deserves
that moniker.  When it doesn't, it is merely engineering.

Ironically, telescopes are a tool that astronomers use to view the stars.


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:25 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> All this futuristic grandiloquence:
>
> On Apr 3, 10:17 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The crux of my view is that programming languages exist in part
>> because computers in general are not smart enough to converse with
>> humans on their own level, so we have to talk to them like autistic 5
>> year-olds.  That was fine when we didn't have any other options, but
>> all the pieces exist now to let computers talk to us very close to our
>> own level, and represent information at the same way we do.  Projects
>> like IBM's Watson, Siri, Wolfram Alpha and Cyc demonstrate pretty
>> clearly to me that we are capable of taking the next step, and the
>> resurgence of the technology sector along with the shortage of
>> qualified developers indicates to me that we need to move now.
>
> needs to be juxtaposed with this antiquated view
>
>> I would argue that the computer is the tool, not the language.
>
>
> ... a view that could not be held by an educated person after the
> 1960s -- ie when it became amply clear to all that the essential and
> hard issues in CS are about software and not hardware

I'll go ahead and forgive the club handed fallacies, so we can have a
nice discussion of your primary point.  What a civil troll I am :)

Lets start with some analogies.  In cooking, chefs use recipes to
produce a meal; the recipe is not a tool.  In architecture, a builder
uses a blueprint to produce a building; the blueprint is not a tool.
In manufacturing, expensive machines use plans to produce physical
goods; the plans are not the tool.

You could say the compiler is a tool, or a development environment is
a tool.  The programming language is a mechanism for communication.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22669

On Apr 3, 11:42 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Lets start with some analogies.  In cooking, chefs use recipes to
> produce a meal; the recipe is not a tool.  In architecture, a builder
> uses a blueprint to produce a building; the blueprint is not a tool.
> In manufacturing, expensive machines use plans to produce physical
> goods; the plans are not the tool.
>
> You could say the compiler is a tool, or a development environment is
> a tool.  The programming language is a mechanism for communication.

Long personal note ahead.
tl;dr version: Computers are such a large shift for human civilization
that generally we dont get what that shift is about or towards.
------
Longer version
My mother often tells me (with some awe): You are so clever! You know
how to use computers! (!?!?)

I try to tell her that a computer is not a machine like a car is (she
is better with things like cars than most of her generation).  Its
physical analogy to a typewriter is surprisingly accurate.  In fact
its more like a pen than other machines and its civilizational
significance is larger than Gutenbergs press and is on par with the
'invention' (or should I say discovery?) of language as a fundamental
fact of what it means to be human.

[At this point or thereabouts my communication attempt breaks down
because I am trying to tell her of the huge significance of
programming...]

A pen can be used to write love-letter or a death-sentence, a text-
book of anatomy or a symphony.
An yet it would be a bizarre superman who could do all these.
Likewise (I vainly try to communicate with my mother!) that I cant
design machines (with autocad) or paint (with photoshop) or ...
probably 99% of the things that people use computers for.
And so saying that I 'know computers' is on par with saying that
because I know (how to use a pen to) fill up income tax forms, I
should also know how to (use a pen to) write Shakespearean sonnets.

There is a sense in which a pen is a 'universal device.'  To some
extent the layman can get this.
There is a larger sense in which the computer is a universal device
(aka universal turing machine).
In my experience, not just 'my mother's' but even PhDs in computer
science dont get what this signifies.

This sense can (somewhat?) be appreciated if we see that the pen is
entirely a declarative tool
The computer is declarative+imperative.
The person who writes the love-letter needs the postman to deliver it.
The judge may write the death-sentence. A hangman is needed to execute
it.
When it comes to computers, the same device can write the love-letter/
death-sentence as the one which mails/controls the electric chair.

Let me end with a quote from Dijkstra: http://www.smaldone.com.ar/documentos/ewd/EWD1036_pretty.html

In the long run I expect computing science to transcend its parent
disciplines, mathematics and logic, by effectively realizing a
significant part of Leibniz's Dream of providing symbolic calculation
as an alternative to human reasoning. (Please note the difference
between "mimicking" and "providing an alternative to": alternatives
are allowed to be better.)

Needless to say, this vision of what computing science is about is not
universally applauded. On the contrary, it has met widespread --and
sometimes even violent-- opposition from all sorts of directions. I
mention as examples

(0) the mathematical guild, which would rather continue to believe
that the Dream of Leibniz is an unrealistic illusion

(1) the business community, which, having been sold to the idea that
computers would make life easier, is mentally unprepared to accept
that they only solve the easier problems at the price of creating much
harder one

(2) the subculture of the compulsive programmer, whose ethics
prescribe that one silly idea and a month of frantic coding should
suffice to make him a life-long millionaire

(3) computer engineering, which would rather continue to act as if it
is all only a matter of higher bit rates and more flops per second

(4) the military, who are now totally absorbed in the business of
using computers to mutate billion-dollar budgets into the illusion of
automatic safety

(5) all soft sciences for which computing now acts as some sort of
interdisciplinary haven

(6) the educational business that feels that, if it has to teach
formal mathematics to CS students, it may as well close its schools.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22646

On 03/04/2012 19:42, Nathan Rice wrote:

> I view "computer science" as applied mathematics, when it deserves
> that moniker.  When it doesn't, it is merely engineering.
>

Is it still April first in your time zone?

-- 
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22648

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:17:18 -0400, Nathan Rice wrote:

> I have never met a programmer that was not completely into computers.
> That leaves a lot unspecified though.

You haven't looked hard enough. There are *thousands* of VB, Java, etc. 
code monkeys who got into programming for the money only and who have 
zero inclination to expand their skills or knowledge beyond that 
necessary to keep their job.

Go to programming blogs, and you will find many examples of some 
allegedly professional programmer selecting an arbitrary blog post to ask 
"Pls sombody write me this code", where "this code" is either an utterly 
trivial question or a six month project.


> As part of my troll-outreach effort, I will indulge here.  I was
> specifically thinking about some earlier claims that programming
> languages as they currently exist are somehow inherently superior to a
> formalized natural language in expressive power.

I would argue that they are, but only for the very limited purpose for 
which they are written. With the possible exception of Inform 7, most 
programming languages are useless at describing (say) human interactions.

Human languages are optimised for many things, but careful, step-by-step 
algorithms are not one of them. This is why mathematicians use a 
specialist language for their problem domain, as do programmers. Human 
language is awfully imprecise and often ambiguous, it encourages implicit 
reasoning, and requires a lot of domain knowledge:

    Joe snatched the hammer from Fred. "Hey," he said, "what are
    you doing? Don't you know that he'll hit the roof if he catches
    you with that?"


> I think part of this comes from the misconception that terse is better

+1


> The crux of my view is that programming languages exist in part because
> computers in general are not smart enough to converse with humans on
> their own level, so we have to talk to them like autistic 5 year-olds. 
> That was fine when we didn't have any other options, but all the pieces
> exist now to let computers talk to us very close to our own level, and
> represent information at the same way we do.

I think you're dreaming. We (that is to say, human beings in general, not 
you and I specifically) cannot even talk to each other accurately, 
precisely and unambiguously all the time. Natural language simply isn't 
designed for that -- hence we have specialist languages like legal 
jargon, mathematics, and programming languages, for specialist purposes.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22631

On 4/3/2012 8:39 AM, Nathan Rice wrote:

> Ultimately, the answers to your questions exist in the world for you
> to see.  How does a surgeon describe a surgical procedure?  How does a
> chef describe a recipe?  How does a carpenter describe the process of
> building cabinets?  Aside from specific words, they all use natural
> language, and it works just fine.

Not really. Surgeon's learn by *watching* a surgeon who knows the 
operation and next (hopefully) doing a particular surgery under 
supervision of such a surgeon, who watches and talks, and may even grab 
the instruments and re-show. They then really learn by doing the 
procedure on multiple people. They often kill a few on the way to mastery.

I first learned basic carpentry and other skills by watching my father. 
I don't remember that he ever said anything about how to hold the tools.

I similarly learned basic cooking by watching my mom. My knowledge of 
how to crack open an egg properly and separate the yolk from the rest is 
a wordless memory movie.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22636

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 8:39 AM, Nathan Rice wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, the answers to your questions exist in the world for you
>> to see.  How does a surgeon describe a surgical procedure?  How does a
>> chef describe a recipe?  How does a carpenter describe the process of
>> building cabinets?  Aside from specific words, they all use natural
>> language, and it works just fine.
>
>
> Not really. Surgeon's learn by *watching* a surgeon who knows the operation
> and next (hopefully) doing a particular surgery under supervision of such a
> surgeon, who watches and talks, and may even grab the instruments and
> re-show. They then really learn by doing the procedure on multiple people.
> They often kill a few on the way to mastery.

Well, there is declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge.  In all
these cases, only the procedural knowledge is absolutely necessary,
but the declarative knowledge is usually a prerequisite to learning
the procedure in any sort of reasonable manner.

> I first learned basic carpentry and other skills by watching my father. I
> don't remember that he ever said anything about how to hold the tools.
>
> I similarly learned basic cooking by watching my mom. My knowledge of how to
> crack open an egg properly and separate the yolk from the rest is a wordless
> memory movie.

A picture is worth a thousand words :)

If you would like, I don't have any problem incorporating visual
programming and programming by demonstration.  I didn't go in that
direction because I have enough to defend as it is.  I like to look at
it from the perspective of teaching/communicating, rather than
operating a simple machine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22645

 
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:

> > On 4/3/2012 8:39 AM, Nathan Rice wrote:
> >
> > > Ultimately, the answers to your questions exist in the world for you
> > > to see.  How does a surgeon describe a surgical procedure?  How does
> > > a chef describe a recipe?  How does a carpenter describe the process
> > > of building cabinets?  Aside from specific words, they all use 
> > > natural language, and it works just fine.
> >
> >
> > Not really. Surgeon's learn by *watching* a surgeon who knows the operation
> > and next (hopefully) doing a particular surgery under supervision of such a
> > surgeon, who watches and talks, and may even grab the instruments and
> > re-show. They then really learn by doing the procedure on multiple
> > people. They often kill a few on the way to mastery.
>  
> 
> Well, there is declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge.  In all
> these cases, only the procedural knowledge is absolutely necessary,
> but the declarative knowledge is usually a prerequisite to learning
> the procedure in any sort of reasonable manner.

There is also tacit knowledge. Such knowledge is a precursor to declarative knowledge and therefore procedural knowledge. "Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. It involves learning and skill, but not in a way that can be written down. Tacit knowledge consists often of habits and culture that we do not recognize in ourselves." Wikipedia.

The process of eliciting tacit knowledge may be time consuming and require patience and skill. The following book covers aspects of this: Nonaka, Ikujiro; Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995), The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. 

Phil Runciman

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web