4 ms·

A useful counterpoint: https://computinged.wordpress.com/2020/12/07/dijkstras-truths-about-computing-education-are-mostly-wrong/ https://computinged.wordpress.c

• amw-zero 6y ago
  I didn’t find that useful. He’s not arguing that metaphors and anthropomorphism are not effective for teaching in general. He’s arguing that they hide the underlying mathematical and logical objects that programs represent, which lulls programmers into a false sense of accomplishment. I agree. We are awfully good at creating software that does not function properly. Should that be rewarded?
  • samth 6y ago
    This is similar to saying that instruments "hide the underlying physical objects". That's certainly true in a sense, but also not a helpful point -- we can't see stars or proteins or quarks without instruments. And we can't learn without metaphors.
    • amw-zero 6y ago
      Thats a very strange analogy. A microscope allows you to directly see a small object. A metaphor hints at an object for you to visualize yourself, and the reference is imprecise. That’s exactly Djikstra’s point. And we can (and do) learn without metaphors. We need base knowledge for the metaphor to refer to. They are useful for learning, but not essential.