3 ms·
There is no reason to repeat the process, after the first 10 years they already have enough examples of what X and Y can be that you don't need to do it for the
by username90 5y ago
There is no reason to repeat the process, after the first 10 years they already have enough examples of what X and Y can be that you don't need to do it for them, they already do it for themselves. If they don't then they haven't properly understood variables.
- adam_arthur 5y agoYet I run into comp sci textbooks that use useless variable names for what are actually meaningful values all the time! The first thing I do, and recommend anyone do, when learning new algorithms is to immediately convert the one letter var gibberish into a real program with proper variable names. Suddenly what looked like a huge, meaningless expression becomes so easy to understand! The lack of focus on readability is rampant through math and math adjacent fields. Example: Another commenter mentioned the Cook-Terrance Reflectance Model. When I google this, I get a large expression with one letter variables. So I'm supposed to store in active memory which letter maps to which real world concept? There's a reason one letter variables is considered a terrible coding practice. Why rely on human memory caching, when you can actually be descriptive?
- username90 5y agoComputer science mostly isn't math though. A small subset of it can be called math, but most stuff are just applications of math. If we are talking about teaching applications of math then the answer is very different.