From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.69.6 with SMTP id x6mr19432726qai.0.1376181287883; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:34:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.28.230 with SMTP id e6mr492015qeh.41.1376181287858; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder02.blueworldhosting.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!f7no1846582qan.0!news-out.google.com!he10ni1415qab.0!nntp.google.com!fx3no1937235qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:34:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87eha1787k.fsf@VLAN-3434.student.uu.se> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.20.190.126; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126 References: <87ob96ajv6.fsf@VLAN-3434.student.uu.se> <877gfucton.fsf@VLAN-3434.student.uu.se> <87pptmb4p9.fsf@VLAN-3434.student.uu.se> <88cb99c6-df8b-49f8-ac53-54b737a02c34@googlegroups.com> <87eha1787k.fsf@VLAN-3434.student.uu.se> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 4 beginner's questions on the PL Ada From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:34:47 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Received-Bytes: 5011 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16795 Date: 2013-08-10T17:34:47-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, August 10, 2013 11:43:11 AM UTC-6, Emanuel Berg wrote: > Shark8 writes: > > > There's a *huge* problem with this: superficial understanding. > > This problem can lead to extremely bad code adopted as "best > > practice"/"standard practice". > > There is nothing superficial about code. Code *is* programming! The word 'superficial' there modifies the word 'understanding'. Therefore I'm not talking about "coding", but rather about the "just look at the code" mentality and the practices it encourages. > But, that being said, books are *great*. If they weren't so > expensive, I would own a lot more of them. References are great, > as well. But I like mine offline (i.e., on paper). Somewhat agreed; I do have several hard-copy Ada books floating around. > I don't like Googling - it disturbs my workflow, and hearts my > eyes (I exclusively work in Emacs, in a Linux VT - see the > screenshots [1] - it is the best configuration - faces, the font, > etc. - that I spent years configuring, to counteract tired/dry > eyes). > > Googling also reduces the mental-physical presence: relying on it > will reduce your attention span - in the room, in time - giving > you "short thoughts" instead of "long". Question: who mentioned googling? I did not. But your "just the code" attitude dose fit well with "just google it." > This may seem monkish, and it is. I like Lisp, C, LaTeX, that > stuff. I don't like Python, Java, PHP (or any web programming). And? I didn't say anything one way or the other -- you're reading a *LOT* into what I wrote, which was ultimately about understanding, not about some block of code. > I don't like GUIs (except for very specific applications, e.g., GIS > and the like; and then I accept them for *others* to use). I don't > like IM but love mails, which I send from rmail. I don't like the > SX sites, but Usenet, for which I use Gnus. I see a pattern in > this, and I hope you do, too. (And not be offended if *you* happen > to like Java.) So you see, you can, as I, prefer code to > documentation, and there is nothing superficial about it. ...You've said almost nothing about code vs documentation the whole time; you have been talking about text vs GUI though. I can therefore assume that you only superficially read my reply. > > An excellent example: PHP's official site. They go to the code > > side even in the documentation, to the point where the mb/forum > > attached to the particular function is oft littered with code > > examples... and usually bad ones once you gain a deeper > > understanding of what's going on. > > That's not an excellent example. If the code is *bad*, all bets > are off... And how are you ever going to know if the code is bad if all you have to compare it with is itself? See, that's why documentation is important: a thing cannot be calibrated solely internally but needs an external measure/meter to check. > It's like me picking up the worst documentation ever > written, saying it exemplifies why documentation shouldn't be > studied. ...that's exactly what I did: I used PHP's "documentation" as an example. > > Then you're a step ahead of the cut-n-past script monkeys that > > the "code snipet" style seems to generate -- not to say that > > code isn't useful but, again, it seems to encourage a lazy > > psudeo-understanding. > > This is 100% incorrect. I'm not going to argue with you if this is > your base, because it is not productive one bit. You just partially *agreed* with me when you were talking about googling and how it reduces attention-spans!