3 ms·

Getting to simple (2013)

17 points by oskarth 12y ago

michaelochurch 12y ago
I've been learning Haskell for the past year. You wanna talk about a lot to learn... I still don't understand category theory, or Arrow aside from the two canonical ones (functions and Kleisli). Monad transformers I would not call myself fluent in. Even with those gaps in my knowledge, I'm still more productive in Haskell than I would be in almost any other language. (Clojure might be comparable, because macros are much more approachable than Template Haskell.) I think we're reaching a point where complete knowledge of anything is impossible; we're just going to have to learn to be productive with a "merely good: level of knowledge. I would like to see a more condensed "common core" of computer science. I feel like it'd take a 9- to 12-year educational program that'd have to be concurrent with actually working as a programmer in some context. But in a more ideal world, it would exist.
vonklaus 12y ago
There is a lot too learn. Part of the problem seems to be that docs are really hard to parse for a lot of technologies (or possibly non-existant). Things would be a lot "simpler" if, after the requisite core knowledge accrual, these concepts could be quickly applied. However, when forced to learn/execute on a granular level for some new concept/framework/library the docs make this difficult. It would be much more efficient for programmers if docs were more than an afterthought. If you are making a new hotNewJavascriptFramework, first, consider not doing it, second, please make your docs extremely easy to understand and search.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Delmania 12y ago
The easiest way to get to simple is through specialization. Rather than focus on trying to learning it all, focus on a core competence, and build from there. Having a computer science or software engineering degree is a great first step, but I think people need to specialize, gain mastery in a single topic, and then build from there.

17 points by oskarth 12y ago

I've been learning Haskell for the past year. You wanna talk about a lot to learn... I still don't understand category theory, or Arrow aside from the two canonical ones (functions and Kleisli). Monad transformers I would not call myself fluent in. Even with those gaps in my knowledge, I'm still more productive in Haskell than I would be in almost any other language. (Clojure might be comparable, because macros are much more approachable than Template Haskell.) I think we're reaching a point where complete knowledge of anything is impossible; we're just going to have to learn to be productive with a "merely good: level of knowledge. I would like to see a more condensed "common core" of computer science. I feel like it'd take a 9- to 12-year educational program that'd have to be concurrent with actually working as a programmer in some context. But in a more ideal world, it would exist.

vonklaus 12y ago

There is a lot too learn. Part of the problem seems to be that docs are really hard to parse for a lot of technologies (or possibly non-existant). Things would be a lot "simpler" if, after the requisite core knowledge accrual, these concepts could be quickly applied. However, when forced to learn/execute on a granular level for some new concept/framework/library the docs make this difficult. It would be much more efficient for programmers if docs were more than an afterthought. If you are making a new hotNewJavascriptFramework, first, consider not doing it, second, please make your docs extremely easy to understand and search.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Delmania 12y ago

The easiest way to get to simple is through specialization. Rather than focus on trying to learning it all, focus on a core competence, and build from there. Having a computer science or software engineering degree is a great first step, but I think people need to specialize, gain mastery in a single topic, and then build from there.