4 ms·

In my class there were people that groked recursion in half an hour, and the other needed a week. And not a big gap in between. It is anecdotal evidence, but t

In my class there were people that groked recursion in half an hour, and the other needed a week. And not a big gap in between. It is anecdotal evidence, but there are people with innate ability. Also - natural distribution makes the one hump camel the default hypothesis.

braythwayt 11y ago
A one-hump camel is a fine hypothesis. But multiple humps, implying “muggles and wizards,” is not.
jrochkind1 11y ago
Or perhaps the people who understood recursion in a week had been writing code since they were 12, and those that didn't were new to it. Or something else we haven't thought of, that is still not innate aptitude. Or the people who understood recursion easily will not be the same people who understand, say, continuations easily. Still, I'd assume that with programming like I assume for most skills (music, athletics, lawyering, foreign language, whatever), some people start out with more aptitude than others, and find it easier than the others. I wouldn't assume it's a markedly more pronounced or separated distribution in CS/programming than for other things though. (Also, I have actually been programming since I was 12, and additionally believe I do have some aptitude for it that makes it easier for me than for some others, I'm pretty good at it -- and I still remember how hard it was for me to understand pointers in Pascal when I first learned them, which seem so straightforward to me now I have no idea why it was challenging at first! And I'm glad I had good teachers in formal coursework.)
- spdionis 11y ago
  I didn't understand what all the fuss about recursion was about for it to require more words than "a function that calls itself". Sounded trivial to me. Later I understood that a number of implementation details make the technique a bit special. The concept itself still sounds trivial to me though.
  - jrochkind1 11y ago
    The concept itself was hard for me when I first learned it, I can remember. Now, it seems trivial to me too, sure.

braythwayt 11y ago

A one-hump camel is a fine hypothesis. But multiple humps, implying “muggles and wizards,” is not.

jrochkind1 11y ago

Or perhaps the people who understood recursion in a week had been writing code since they were 12, and those that didn't were new to it. Or something else we haven't thought of, that is still not innate aptitude. Or the people who understood recursion easily will not be the same people who understand, say, continuations easily. Still, I'd assume that with programming like I assume for most skills (music, athletics, lawyering, foreign language, whatever), some people start out with more aptitude than others, and find it easier than the others. I wouldn't assume it's a markedly more pronounced or separated distribution in CS/programming than for other things though. (Also, I have actually been programming since I was 12, and additionally believe I do have some aptitude for it that makes it easier for me than for some others, I'm pretty good at it -- and I still remember how hard it was for me to understand pointers in Pascal when I first learned them, which seem so straightforward to me now I have no idea why it was challenging at first! And I'm glad I had good teachers in formal coursework.)

spdionis 11y ago
I didn't understand what all the fuss about recursion was about for it to require more words than "a function that calls itself". Sounded trivial to me. Later I understood that a number of implementation details make the technique a bit special. The concept itself still sounds trivial to me though.
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  The concept itself was hard for me when I first learned it, I can remember. Now, it seems trivial to me too, sure.