3 ms·

I have offered paid training at Lambda Conf in the past with my coauthor Julie and I am opposed to this ladder for _many_ reasons. I think the class (as in hie

I have offered paid training at Lambda Conf in the past with my coauthor Julie and I am opposed to this ladder for _many_ reasons. I think the class (as in hierarchy) and topic-chasing anxiety it will induce in many is counter-productive. It's extremely flawed as a guide for what to learn or what in order to learn things as well. One of the worst attempts I've seen on that front in fact. And yeah, the labels are useless anyway. It doesn't really matter what one thinks a "beginner" is. It's also just bad optics. I don't know why John does stuff like this.

runT1ME 10y ago
I'm not sure I would have called it a 'ladder', and the fine grained tiering into buckets seems overly ambitious, but I'm guessing you'd end up agreeing that there are topics that most beginners will find confusing/unfamiliar. If the end goal is to make it easier to sort talks into tracks for conferences, what's the issue? Do you really think Profunctor Optics should be a beginner level talk, or that using "functors" should be advanced? I'm sure you could argue specifics or make a good case for mistakes made in this chart, but to say "I don't know why John does stuff like this" seems unnecessarily harsh.