4 ms·

I like to understand the construction too, it's why I'm in engineering. I'm just saying it shouldn't be necessary in order to understand an idea. For me, it was

I like to understand the construction too, it's why I'm in engineering. I'm just saying it shouldn't be necessary in order to understand an idea. For me, it was a crutch I used for years before I grokked how to decouple interfaces from implementations because I naturally understand things better after I build them. But if you use an implementation to understand an idea, you couple implementation to interface in your mind, and so it changes your understanding.

hnlmorg 5y ago
> I'm just saying it shouldn't be necessary in order to understand an idea Nobody said it is necessary. Some folk just said they find it easier learning this way. > But if you use an implementation to understand an idea, you couple implementation to interface in your mind, and so it changes your understanding. That's a risk either way. It's a risk that if you only learn the high level concept you miss the detail needed to use it correctly in a specific language too (OOP can differ quite significantly from one language to another). And it's also a risk that then when you learn that detail you might forget the high level abstract and still end up assuming the detail is universal. If we're getting worried about variables we cannot control then there's also a risk that you might just mishear the lecturer or read the source material incorrectly too. Heck, some days I'm just tired and nothing mentally sinks in regardless of how well it is explained. There are an infinite ways you could teach something correctly and the student still misunderstand the topic. That's why practical exercises exist. Why course work exists. Why peer reviews exist. etc. And just because you struggled to grasp abstract concepts one specific way it doesn't mean everyone else will struggle in that same way.

4 ms·

I like to understand the construction too, it's why I'm in engineering. I'm just saying it shouldn't be necessary in order to understand an idea. For me, it was

by LEDThereBeLight 5y ago

hnlmorg 5y ago
> I'm just saying it shouldn't be necessary in order to understand an idea Nobody said it is necessary. Some folk just said they find it easier learning this way. > But if you use an implementation to understand an idea, you couple implementation to interface in your mind, and so it changes your understanding. That's a risk either way. It's a risk that if you only learn the high level concept you miss the detail needed to use it correctly in a specific language too (OOP can differ quite significantly from one language to another). And it's also a risk that then when you learn that detail you might forget the high level abstract and still end up assuming the detail is universal. If we're getting worried about variables we cannot control then there's also a risk that you might just mishear the lecturer or read the source material incorrectly too. Heck, some days I'm just tired and nothing mentally sinks in regardless of how well it is explained. There are an infinite ways you could teach something correctly and the student still misunderstand the topic. That's why practical exercises exist. Why course work exists. Why peer reviews exist. etc. And just because you struggled to grasp abstract concepts one specific way it doesn't mean everyone else will struggle in that same way.