4 ms·
Basically, I'd say, ordinary human beings are much better at memorizing words and symbols than most smart people think - and much worse at understanding highly
by urbit 13y ago
Basically, I'd say, ordinary human beings are much better at memorizing words and symbols than most smart people think - and much worse at understanding highly abstract concepts.
Think of the number of things you need to memorize to be an auto mechanic. Yet there are a large, large number of people who are capable of becoming auto mechanics, but not capable of becoming Haskell programmers.
- nnq 13y agoShouldn't we compare the abilities of people vs. computers? Computers can store a lot in their memory, but it's pretty hard to make them prove theorems, whereas humans are pretty bad at memorizing anything and pretty good at abstraction. ...and since a programming language should be primarily designed for humans (or, as I actually see it, a programming language should be an interface between the human mind and the computer) and at the same time be executable by computers, choosing more memorization and less abstract concepts seems like a bad idea ...most smart people's minds find juggling abstract concepts easier and more enjoyable than memorizing rules (and when working memory is not enough to hold all the abstract concepts we're juggling, we use anything from pen and paper to other more advanced devices - just ask any mathematician), and those that don't are also those that "just don't get (or like) software", so they shouldn't be programming anyway.
- urbit 13y agoI agree with your goals but not with your observations. Perhaps I'm biased by the fact that I have small children. I am regularly amazed by their ability to memorize words, numbers, symbols, etc, combined with complete incompetence at abstract concepts. Grownups are different, of course, but it's still natural that most of what I know about learning comes from my own kids.