[ruby-talk:21523] Re: SV: Re: Ruby/objects book in style of The Little Lisper

Hello --

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Todd Gillespie wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >
> > I would guess that less than 20% of the general population
> > would agree to the statement "I really like math". Perhaps
> > things are different where you live.
> >
> > Again, it depends on the TARGET AUDIENCE. If you're
> > targeting programmers, then yes, you'll find a large number
> > of people who understand math, and enjoy it. If you're
> > targeting people who have not yet learned any programming
> > language, you'll find a large number of people who would
> > prefer to avoid advanced math (e.g. algebra and above).
>
> You are making a classic marketing mistake, namely confusing lack of
> training with unwillingness.  There is no reason to believe that
> someone who is trying to learn a computer language is averse to learning
> mathematics at the same time.

Then someone should write books for them too :-)  That's the thing:
determining audiences for computer books (or whatever) doesn't have to
be a winner-take-all process.  If I understand Kevin's point
correctly, that point is not that there are no people who would read a
mathematics-intensive introduction to programming, but that there
*are* people who would read a non-math-intensive one.

> > > Your counterexample fields are quite incorrect as well.
> > > Logic is all about set theory, and sociology and
> > > psychology are heavily dependent upon statistics.
> >
> > I guess we use different definitions of those terms, then.
>
> Why, do they call sociology and logic something different over there?
> I stand by my assertion, that all three of those, and programming as well,
                                    ^^^^^
Hmmmm.... I only count two.  But then again, I never got beyond
pre-calculus :-)

> are heavily dependent upon the formal rigour given to us by math.  Without
> that, computers cannot help us.

That's manifestly true.  But it still leaves the interesting question
of individual involvement with the art of programming.  Photography is
heavily dependent for its existence upon sophisticated knowledge of
chemistry - but it's still possible to be a serious and good
photographer without being a chemistry expert.  Mind you, I would
never make the case that it's better to know less about one's art than
more.  But I do tend to think that there are legitimate increments,
and different points of entry, to the arts.

In the case of programming, the matter may be rendered less clear, and
more urgent, by the fact that at least some people who are
underprepared (though they may be very interested) are doing it
professionally.  That's where the stakes get a little higher.  But
that's more a question of misuse of training materials, than a
question of whether those materials (i.e., books pitched at different
levels, and at people with different configurations of interest)
should/can exist.

> > Ok, I think this thread deserves to die now. Obviously we

Whoops :-)

> > have widely different opinions on a number of topics. I'll
> > leave it up to the author of the book to choose his
> > audience, and write accordingly.
> >
>
> Nah, Godwin's law has not yet been invoked.  But you're right, there's not
> much left to discuss.

Heavens.  I must be spoiled by a year of ruby-talk/comp.lang.ruby.
I've started to forget all about things like people calling each other
Nazis (the basis of Godwin's law) and the rest of that tedious culture
of point-scoring and one-ups-manship out there.  I guess people still
do it, somewhere.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: [e-mail]
work: [e-mail]
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav