4 ms·
alternatively, just start building interesting things and follow all rabbit holes. computer science doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
by nathants 3y ago
alternatively, just start building interesting things and follow all rabbit holes.
computer science doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
- ackfoobar 3y agoA lot of people learn best by doing. Some people, especially those who are more math-inclined, probably learn best starting from the abstract.
- kwant_kiddo 3y agoI can tell you that math people also learn from the concrete. You do not learn math by reading it, but by fighting it.
- ackfoobar 3y agoI learned OCaml, which made programming "click" for me, partly by doing these exercises. Compared to the root comment's "building interesting things", it's definitely more abstract than concrete. https://ocaml.org/problems https://ocaml.org/problems I do see your point though. In the algebra class, I couldn't grok groups from the axioms, without first seeing some concrete examples. But the thing is, math people's "concrete" is already several layers of abstractions removed from reality.
- citrin_ru 3y agoI'm not really math inclined (for me math is a tool I can use for physics/engineering and other areas; I don't like pure math) but I find it very hard to start doing something without some reading books / docs / articles first. I need at least vague understanding of what I do otherwise it feels like a ritual which doesn't help me to learn. I can go in parallel. I'm actually self-taught and my acquired over many years knowledge is fragmented but for each specific fragment I first read then do.
- funman7 3y agoMaybe it’s just me… but I never have been able to immediately fluidly intuitively grasp any understanding when someone has made “in a vacuum” statements. I just think of vacuuming carpet.
- nathants 3y agoperhaps better verbiage would be in the absence of a concrete application currently under construction.
- still_grokking 3y agoI think you should do both! In lock-step. You won't learn anything if you don't practice it. But "learning" computer related stuff without the theory behind is also kind of moot. You wouldn't get the full picture this way, and you would end up with a lot of "knowledge" that isn't more than assumptions. Likely wrong assumptions…
- generalizations 3y agoThat’s implied by the rabbit holes. For me, following the rabbit holes meant digging deeper and deeper into the underlying theory, but at a pace mediated by my current level of understanding.
- still_grokking 3y ago> That’s implied by the rabbit holes. I guess not for everyone. Frankly. I know quite some people who do programming for living but are more or less avert to any theory behind it. You get even called names if you come along with such topics… (I think it doesn't need to be said that it's quite difficult to deal with those people at times as they're kind of ignorant.)
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y agoI recognize this probably wasn't your intention but it doesn't do anyone any favors to normalize toxic behavior. Yes "bro-y" coworkers exist but reinforcing curious behavior is preferable to normalizing wage slave mediocrity
- nathants 3y agowhy not both is a great answer. for many, a task makes the long grind of study more fun. a mission and all that. it also add success criteria to an otherwise ambiguous task.