3 ms·

No, no, no, no. Instinctively I recoil at that idea. I dont quite know how to explain why, but I'll give it a go... Im good with computers because I was there

by alan_cx 14y ago

No, no, no, no. Instinctively I recoil at that idea. I dont quite know how to explain why, but I'll give it a go... Im good with computers because I was there in the early days when it was pretty simple. Everything since has build upon those simple blocks. So, I can always work it back as it were. It kinda means I can simplify current complexities down to simple fundamentals. So, it leaves me with an ability to be presented something new, or different and very quickly I can understand it. Does that make any sense? I assume many people here are exactly like that, or recognise what Im trying to say. Pathetic I know, but if any one can put it better, please do!!!! Anyway, all I know is that I am so much better off knowing how it all came together than people who don't. I don't understand how any one can claim to understand any subject with out understanding it's journey as it were. I make a distinction here between know how to use something and understand it. If all one wants to do is "use", then understanding isn't absolutely necessary. You know, plenty of people drive cars with out understanding anything about how they work.

SatvikBeri 14y ago
No one is saying that knowledge of the history isn't useful. But it's not the most efficient way to learn the concepts. For example, it would be crazy to start learning basic programming by first studying the physics behind computers. Learn the history behind your subject, but separate it from the pedagogy. Otherwise you'll have a much harder time learning knowledge that you can actually apply.
- derleth 14y ago
  > For example, it would be crazy to start learning basic programming by first studying the physics behind computers. Technically, a truly historical development in terms of teaching programming would involve plugboards and specialized hardware design freshman year, punch cards sophomore year, teletypes junior year, and then 'intelligent' terminals senior year. We simply wouldn't have time to teach anything similar to modern networking, which only really came about in the 1980s, let alone GUI design or Web programming.
derleth 14y ago
> I was there in the early days when it was pretty simple. I think you have an interesting idea of 'simple': A lot of software becomes orders of magnitude simpler to design and reason about once you have enough RAM to organize it in the obvious way. For example, for many parsing tasks, a recursive-descent parser is the obvious way, but you can only design your software that way once you have a language that can directly express recursion and a computer that can grow a big enough call stack (on the stack or in the heap) to allow the parser to juggle nontrivial sentences. Otherwise, you're left the laborious, non-obvious, labor-intensive, but ultimately pointless task of turning your design into a program your tools can implement. > So, it leaves me with an ability to be presented something new, or different and very quickly I can understand it. Honestly, I think that says a lot more about your intelligence than your history. That's actually a pretty fair definition of intelligence, in fact. How about this: Teaching networking now is teaching TCP/IP and everything that TCP/IP rests upon, such as Ethernet and Wi-Fi. Theory naturally flows from practice, and that is the practice. The OSI Model? Gone. Out. Forget it. Nobody actually implements all seven layers; at most, we have four. NCP? What? If you know what NCP stands for, congratulations, you know something entirely useless. "Jeopardy!" would love you. So why teach the stuff we know is useless? It actively discourages students. It makes them think they're just wasting their time, primarily because they are. The history of computer networking is a valid topic. It should be taught in its own course, it deserves its own course. It does not deserve to be shoved into a course on how networking actually works.

by alan_cx 14y ago

SatvikBeri 14y ago

No one is saying that knowledge of the history isn't useful. But it's not the most efficient way to learn the concepts. For example, it would be crazy to start learning basic programming by first studying the physics behind computers. Learn the history behind your subject, but separate it from the pedagogy. Otherwise you'll have a much harder time learning knowledge that you can actually apply.

derleth 14y ago
> For example, it would be crazy to start learning basic programming by first studying the physics behind computers. Technically, a truly historical development in terms of teaching programming would involve plugboards and specialized hardware design freshman year, punch cards sophomore year, teletypes junior year, and then 'intelligent' terminals senior year. We simply wouldn't have time to teach anything similar to modern networking, which only really came about in the 1980s, let alone GUI design or Web programming.

derleth 14y ago

> I was there in the early days when it was pretty simple. I think you have an interesting idea of 'simple': A lot of software becomes orders of magnitude simpler to design and reason about once you have enough RAM to organize it in the obvious way. For example, for many parsing tasks, a recursive-descent parser is the obvious way, but you can only design your software that way once you have a language that can directly express recursion and a computer that can grow a big enough call stack (on the stack or in the heap) to allow the parser to juggle nontrivial sentences. Otherwise, you're left the laborious, non-obvious, labor-intensive, but ultimately pointless task of turning your design into a program your tools can implement. > So, it leaves me with an ability to be presented something new, or different and very quickly I can understand it. Honestly, I think that says a lot more about your intelligence than your history. That's actually a pretty fair definition of intelligence, in fact. How about this: Teaching networking now is teaching TCP/IP and everything that TCP/IP rests upon, such as Ethernet and Wi-Fi. Theory naturally flows from practice, and that is the practice. The OSI Model? Gone. Out. Forget it. Nobody actually implements all seven layers; at most, we have four. NCP? What? If you know what NCP stands for, congratulations, you know something entirely useless. "Jeopardy!" would love you. So why teach the stuff we know is useless? It actively discourages students. It makes them think they're just wasting their time, primarily because they are. The history of computer networking is a valid topic. It should be taught in its own course, it deserves its own course. It does not deserve to be shoved into a course on how networking actually works.