4 ms·

This is a double-edged sword. Forgive me a small anecdote: I once had a wonderful tutor who could explain any advanced concept in highly intuitive terms and it

This is a double-edged sword. Forgive me a small anecdote: I once had a wonderful tutor who could explain any advanced concept in highly intuitive terms and it just made sense... until I got out of the classroom. At which point I'd just have this feeling of "Hang on, whaaaaaa...?". The first time I attempted the exam in this particular subject matter, I failed miserably (rightly so). Having learned my lesson, I went back to study the actual source material more thoroughly instead of mostly just listening to the probably-best-educator on the subject. That time I actually understood the material and passed with flying colours. (I still think the particular educator had a major role in me passing at all, but I digress.) That that for what you will, but please be aware that a "gift for simplification" sometimes is a double-edged sword and can leave the audience thinking that they've understood when, actually, they haven't. I'm not saying that's the case here, just something to be wary of.

agumonkey 12y ago
I had similar experiences many times, and I don't know what's best, looking at an abstraction for weeks until you get the "ohh they just meant this" or knowing in advance it's not that obscure and then work to imprint said abstraction deeper.
- lomnakkus 12y ago
  Ever since that experience, I've tried to somehow try to practice working with "X" in some concrete way, even though it might feel like a classic "math problem" situation. Personally, I find it helps me get a grasp on "X", whatever it might be. (Mind you, this is just personal experience so YMMV.)
brudgers 12y ago
The difference here is that Rich Hickey is explaining a fundamental computing mechanism that many programmers have come in with but few think about enough to give a name: the finite state transducer [see Wikipedia]. The name "transducers" is not an invention, it's basic computer science. The idea of using transducers to abstract over an input is not really controversial in the sense that it's the essence of what turns source into executable code on digital computers. Sure, Ther are tradeoffs relative to which flavor of Turing machine underpins any abstraction, but at least this is an area where we can achieve clarity. This is something Hickey implemented, not invented. Like all of automata, understanding the concept is likely non-trivial for some pretty smart people since it requires thinking about first principles of computing.

agumonkey 12y ago

I had similar experiences many times, and I don't know what's best, looking at an abstraction for weeks until you get the "ohh they just meant this" or knowing in advance it's not that obscure and then work to imprint said abstraction deeper.

lomnakkus 12y ago
Ever since that experience, I've tried to somehow try to practice working with "X" in some concrete way, even though it might feel like a classic "math problem" situation. Personally, I find it helps me get a grasp on "X", whatever it might be. (Mind you, this is just personal experience so YMMV.)

brudgers 12y ago

The difference here is that Rich Hickey is explaining a fundamental computing mechanism that many programmers have come in with but few think about enough to give a name: the finite state transducer [see Wikipedia]. The name "transducers" is not an invention, it's basic computer science. The idea of using transducers to abstract over an input is not really controversial in the sense that it's the essence of what turns source into executable code on digital computers. Sure, Ther are tradeoffs relative to which flavor of Turing machine underpins any abstraction, but at least this is an area where we can achieve clarity. This is something Hickey implemented, not invented. Like all of automata, understanding the concept is likely non-trivial for some pretty smart people since it requires thinking about first principles of computing.