3 ms·
This blog does pretty good job summarizing Naur's points. (My only quibble is equating mental models with theory in Naur's sense, but its an okay approximation)
by jimmyhmiller 4y ago
This blog does pretty good job summarizing Naur's points. (My only quibble is equating mental models with theory in Naur's sense, but its an okay approximation). I definitely recommend people read the original paper. It's a flawed but beautiful paper.
Shameless self plug:
We just did an episode on Naur's Programming as Theory Building in the most recent episode of the Future of Coding Podcast.
https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/061 https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/061
- kasbah 4y agoI was going to post this! I really enjoyed this episode (and also, all the other episodes of your podcast).
- fghfghfghfghfgh 4y agoCan you elaborate on why you think the paper is flawed please?
- jimmyhmiller 4y agoI think all papers are flawed in their own way. So it is not meant as a slight. It is actually my favorite programming related paper. That said: I think Naur was just a bit to vague and assumed background knowledge of Gilbert Ryle where most people don't have any. I think a lot of people finish reading the paper and don't realize what Naur's notion of theory is or how his radical conclusions follow.
- fghfghfghfghfgh 4y agoI don’t know Gilbert Ryle but I believe I understand the paper as intended. What do they realize then instead?