Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Cor Gest <cor@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 01:47:58 +0000
A better question might be, "what are the arguments for and against a
good understanding of maths being necessary to programming?
In stating the question this way, you presume there is no (good)
programming possible whithout math.
In which case how would you restate it to get rid of this presumption?
Why would it be good (or bad) to get rid of any presumption ?
Just for semantical purposes, or the presumed math in the question ?
why bother at all ?
if it's good it lives on and thrives, if not it dies.
Nature seems to grok it allready for a couple of million of years.
Alltough some people believe it was a mere 4000. Again a math problem :
what constitutes the size of the entity named 'day'.
Cor
--
(defvar MyComputer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
The biggest problem LISP has, is that it does not appeal to dumb people
If that fails to satisfy you, start reading the HyperSpec or woman frig
mailpolicy @ http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
.
- References:
- Dumbing down?
- From: Jeff Rollin
- Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Ken Tilton
- Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Jeff Rollin
- Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Cor Gest
- Re: Dumbing down?
- From: Jeff Rollin
- Dumbing down?
- Prev by Date: Re: Dumbing down?
- Next by Date: Re: inlining and (compile
- Previous by thread: Re: Dumbing down?
- Next by thread: Re: Dumbing down?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
