3 ms·
I didn't remember that in the introduction. But if that was the case the book should've included more counterexamples and a less imperative language.
by DanielVZ 4y ago
I didn't remember that in the introduction. But if that was the case the book should've included more counterexamples and a less imperative language.
- Jtsummers 4y agoWhy? How strong would their [0] arguments be? Is it worth increasing the size of what was already (had to look this up) a 464 page text to include weak arguments about other people's views? Or, you know, people could actually read the giant disclaimer (it was more than those two paragraphs, I just copied them here) and then take it at face value, go learn other ideas about programming. Practice your own judgement. No book, no philosophy, no technique, no programming language, no ChatGPT can ever remove the need for the programmer to think for themselves and determine their own approaches to programming and which approaches are appropriate for which programs. [0] I keep using they and their, there were multiple authors for the book. Several chapters were written by people other than Martin.
- mtrower 4y ago> Why? How strong would their [0] arguments be? I imagine the strength of their arguments would be approximately related to the strength of said arguments merits / demerits. You don't have to present an unyielding argument if your goal is to educate your reader and help them to reach an informed position. He's saying he expected more, coming from a different background with a culture of rigor.