3 ms·

> Many, people have in fact stated that my website helped them. So it seems you are provably wrong. Again with that very loose logic. I did not state your webs

by fargle 7y ago

> Many, people have in fact stated that my website helped them. So it seems you are provably wrong. Again with that very loose logic. I did not state your website helped no one. So the fact that it helped one or more people does not prove I was wrong. I do believe it does far more harm than good. If your idea is that there as so many people writing code that can't possibly understand Goldberg AND also it "would be an idiotic waste of time" to summarize a real paper because it was "too long and complex" your target audience sounds like you are calling your target audience pretty unprofessional. So I'll agree that if your target audience has an attention span of a gnat and can't understand basics about computer science, they might like your website with navigation panel. And they should NEVER EVER write numeric code.

brazzy 7y ago
> I do believe it does far more harm than good. How exactly does it do harm? > If your idea is that there as so many people writing code that can't possibly understand Goldberg No, my idea is that there are many people writing code who have concrete problems and questions to which the Goldberg paper is not a good answer because it is far from clear how it addresses those problems and questions, and would take a larger time investment to understand than seems warranted. Thus it is useful to have a less formal explanation that addresses them directly and refers to the paper as a more in-depth resource. > AND also it "would be an idiotic waste of time" to summarize a real paper because it was "too long and complex" No. What I called a waste of time was the suggestion of "introducing the goldberg paper gently - augmenting and highlighting the references", because then I would be writing about the paper instead of about the problems and questions of the audience. > And they should NEVER EVER write numeric code. We may have found a big misunderstanding. I completely agree that my website does not provide sufficient information for people writing iterative numeric algorithms (Though please note that the "error propagation" makes this very clear and explicitly directs people at the Goldberg paper). It is aimed at people who write some of the other 99% of code, which does very simple calculations (if any) but still has people put quantities (often representing money) into floating point typed variables and then be surprised at the behaviour.
- fargle 7y ago
  You are beginning to see what I mean. But here's the part you didn't get. If you are going to be a programmer, you should think like an engineer. You need to understand your machine and your code and the effects of it all. I believe your hypothetical audience doesn't exist. Give them some credit. There's simply no reason a competent software engineer cannot understand Goldberg.
  - brazzy 7y ago
    > But here's the part you didn't get. If you are going to be a programmer, you should think like an engineer. You need to understand your machine and your code and the effects of it all. Totally. And my website aims to help people understand this aspect of their machine better, and it does this quite well (other people's observation, not just my assertion). > I believe your hypothetical audience doesn't exist. Give them some credit. There's simply no reason a competent software engineer cannot understand Goldberg. That they can understand it doesn't mean they have to invest the hours it would take to go through all of it with rusty formal math skills, when their immediate problem or question concerns ony a small (and not immediately discernible) part of it.

by fargle 7y ago

brazzy 7y ago

> I do believe it does far more harm than good. How exactly does it do harm? > If your idea is that there as so many people writing code that can't possibly understand Goldberg No, my idea is that there are many people writing code who have concrete problems and questions to which the Goldberg paper is not a good answer because it is far from clear how it addresses those problems and questions, and would take a larger time investment to understand than seems warranted. Thus it is useful to have a less formal explanation that addresses them directly and refers to the paper as a more in-depth resource. > AND also it "would be an idiotic waste of time" to summarize a real paper because it was "too long and complex" No. What I called a waste of time was the suggestion of "introducing the goldberg paper gently - augmenting and highlighting the references", because then I would be writing about the paper instead of about the problems and questions of the audience. > And they should NEVER EVER write numeric code. We may have found a big misunderstanding. I completely agree that my website does not provide sufficient information for people writing iterative numeric algorithms (Though please note that the "error propagation" makes this very clear and explicitly directs people at the Goldberg paper). It is aimed at people who write some of the other 99% of code, which does very simple calculations (if any) but still has people put quantities (often representing money) into floating point typed variables and then be surprised at the behaviour.

fargle 7y ago
You are beginning to see what I mean. But here's the part you didn't get. If you are going to be a programmer, you should think like an engineer. You need to understand your machine and your code and the effects of it all. I believe your hypothetical audience doesn't exist. Give them some credit. There's simply no reason a competent software engineer cannot understand Goldberg.
- brazzy 7y ago
  > But here's the part you didn't get. If you are going to be a programmer, you should think like an engineer. You need to understand your machine and your code and the effects of it all. Totally. And my website aims to help people understand this aspect of their machine better, and it does this quite well (other people's observation, not just my assertion). > I believe your hypothetical audience doesn't exist. Give them some credit. There's simply no reason a competent software engineer cannot understand Goldberg. That they can understand it doesn't mean they have to invest the hours it would take to go through all of it with rusty formal math skills, when their immediate problem or question concerns ony a small (and not immediately discernible) part of it.