Owen wrote:
> This is not "developer" level .. its literacy level, understanding the
> basics and having a cultural intuition where it all fits in.
I recently advised someone that took Harvard's CS-50 class. Someone with
no experience with programming. Initially she said she wanted rules for
what do first and what to next, and so on. The fast-and-loose nature of
it was troubling to her.
Of course, it is troubling from the perspective of making robust
systems. It is also the unique and fun aspect of designing software.
That there are no constraints, little cost or risk to entry (compared to
say, mechanical or chemical engineering), and skill is learning how to
cope with the freedom.
I think if there is wisdom to extract from programming literacy, it's
(one way) to learn what it is like to get in over your head,
complexity-wise, and find a way out. I'm skeptical that unless one
tries to get to some degree of `developer' level knowledge, that one
really gets the possibility of tackling a large and complex problem in
pieces. There's no sitting on the sidelines.
Then there's the more direct meaning of literacy, which is whether one
can rationalize large and complex projects written by other individuals
or teams. This is taught poorly, if at all. Lots of emphasis on how
to build systems, but less on modeling and deconstruction and
rebuilding.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Locked
