3 ms·

Usefulness is subjective. Some people learn well through certain methods than others. Some people stick with the first thing that they find and make it work fo

Usefulness is subjective. Some people learn well through certain methods than others. Some people stick with the first thing that they find and make it work for their needs. Never discovering the "better tools". Richard Feynman, often regarded as one of the best teachers of physics to have ever lived, when asked how to teach, said he didn't know. He just tried to bring as many views to the table as possible. Some people learn from simple high-level descriptions, others need more details to build up to high-level understanding. Pretty sure you're just being contrarian to be contrarian. Because it seems you're suggesting your way and the things you find the most value in are the only way. Which is a nonsense counter-argument to the question "Why does this thing exist." Your criterion feels more like "I don't get why it exists. Thus it's useless." Self-aggrandizing nonsense.

throwanem 10y ago
It's not my criterion; this discussion originated in a comment (not mine) claiming roughly that the products of mental illness are of no use to anyone. And I know full well why TempleOS exists: God told Terry Davis to build it. While that clearly means a lot to Mr. Davis, I am not sure how much validity you mean it to have to anyone else. As it happens, I tend to agree that utility is where you find it. But that's not at all the same as saying that TempleOS is a good teaching tool. Perhaps it is. But thus far I see nothing save repeated assertion to support that claim, and it would be nice to see a bit more by way of substantiation. For example, someone claimed that, because you can draw circles at the command line with TempleOS, it is simple. But I can do that too, with a terminal and a gnuplot build that include sixel graphics support. (I did it the other day for grins.) Does that mean my setup is simple? Obviously not. Why does it mean that TempleOS is? What does the existence of the capability say about TempleOS's suitability for teaching? Does it say anything? If it does, no one has seen fit to explain how. The same goes for the fact that TempleOS is written in C and assembly. Lots of things are written in C and assembly. Are they all good teaching tools? (Also: A throwaway, for this? Why?)

throwanem 10y ago

It's not my criterion; this discussion originated in a comment (not mine) claiming roughly that the products of mental illness are of no use to anyone. And I know full well why TempleOS exists: God told Terry Davis to build it. While that clearly means a lot to Mr. Davis, I am not sure how much validity you mean it to have to anyone else. As it happens, I tend to agree that utility is where you find it. But that's not at all the same as saying that TempleOS is a good teaching tool. Perhaps it is. But thus far I see nothing save repeated assertion to support that claim, and it would be nice to see a bit more by way of substantiation. For example, someone claimed that, because you can draw circles at the command line with TempleOS, it is simple. But I can do that too, with a terminal and a gnuplot build that include sixel graphics support. (I did it the other day for grins.) Does that mean my setup is simple? Obviously not. Why does it mean that TempleOS is? What does the existence of the capability say about TempleOS's suitability for teaching? Does it say anything? If it does, no one has seen fit to explain how. The same goes for the fact that TempleOS is written in C and assembly. Lots of things are written in C and assembly. Are they all good teaching tools? (Also: A throwaway, for this? Why?)