 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh. The hard part is figuring out how to take a big heap of knowledge
>> and structure it into something coherant with a logical order to is
>> that somebody else might even be able to follow. ;-)
>
> Yes, that's the hard part. :-)
You noticed?
> It's one of the problems with open
> source software that's doing something totally new, where there's two or
> three people who know how it works inside and out, and they don't know
> how to explain it to someone who doesn't already know what they're
> talking about.
Welcome to Haskell!
I am *totally certain* that the guy who designed the undecidable
typeclass instance translation rules to System F knows *exactly* what
they're talking about and why it works... but they're far too busy
programming it to tell anybody about it in words of less than 6
syllables. o_O
> It's a tremendously useful skill to have: the ability to explain to
> grandma (or your boss) what she needs to know about the technology.
> (That's probably one reason I use too many analogies - I find they work
> well with non-technical people.)
Indeed.
IMHO, the *key* skill here is looking at a thing and figuring out what
*is* important, and what is *not* important, for the purposes of the
discussion in question.
A computer is a very large, complex device, and the software that powers
it is built from abstract concepts implemented on top of concepts
constructed from yet more concepts, in a mind-blowing vertical tower of
abstraction.
Just imagine trying to explain to a Victorian scientist how to design,
build and program a modern-day computer. I mean, apart from the minor
detail of needing semiconductor technology and microscopic lithography,
you'd have to give them a lecture in electronics, Boolean algebra, logic
gates, sequential logic design, binary encodings, processor design,
instruction sets, computer programming, subroutine calls, interrupt
handlers, I/O device design, system programming, compiler design,
language design, memory allocation and task scheduling algorithms...
shall I stop yet? :-P
Having just said all that, if somebody wants to know how to connect
several PCs to a single Internet connection, you *could* tell them about
IP addressing and subnet masks and the intricasies of NAT... or you
could just tell them to plug a few boxes together and it'll work. Guess
which answer most people want to hear. ;-)
> It's also one of the important skills you learn from a PhD.
I'll take your word for it, Dr New.
> I'll second the notion that if you can sit down and write something like
> you post here, and just churn it out, do so. Getting the ideas down is
> good.
I had an idea that I could produce a kind of "portfolio" of good-quality
written documents (various subject areas and target audiences) and I
could show it to people and say "hey dude, I'm clever!" The thing I
posted here is a first attempt at one such portfolio document.
(I'm polishing up my Parsec thing to make another such document. And I
may or may not to a layman's overview of computer hardware - I don't
know if I could do it justice...)
> After that, if you want to go further, sit down and make an outline (as
> in "table of contents" type outline). Break it down until the structure
> has an entry for each idea, where "each idea" is covered in a paragraph
> or two. Then read the outline and make sure someone else could
> understand it on the first read through. Then you just fill in the outline.
The trick to this seems to be figuring out which concepts "depend on"
which other concepts, which ideas "lead to" others, and finding an
optimal order to present the ideas. And some good metaphores and
examples usually help immensely... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I had an idea that I could produce a kind of "portfolio" of good-quality
> written documents (various subject areas and target audiences) and I
> could show it to people and say "hey dude, I'm clever!" The thing I
> posted here is a first attempt at one such portfolio document.
That's an excellent idea.
> (I'm polishing up my Parsec thing to make another such document. And I
> may or may not to a layman's overview of computer hardware - I don't
> know if I could do it justice...)
Give it a go. Worst thing that happens is people say "don't put that one in
your portfolio."
Indeed, you might be in a good position to write documentation rather than
programs. Consider looking for work as a technical writer.
> The trick to this seems to be figuring out which concepts "depend on"
> which other concepts, which ideas "lead to" others, and finding an
> optimal order to present the ideas. And some good metaphores and
> examples usually help immensely... ;-)
Yep. It often takes me three or four start-from-scratch rewrites of an
outline before I fill it in. Often takes longer to do the TOC than the paper.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> as well as making quick (and wrong) assumptions about my
> origins or beliefs
Yeah like u ddn't do it first. This proves u and and U is what matters,
Fine by me.
> will strengthen the argument that it's just fine for
> those from the third world to pirate.
yeah, what ever...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> FWIW, I'm more tolerant to some piracy than to people using "u" and "ppl"
> and "coz" repeatedly >.<
>
Don't like it, don't read it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm more tolerant to some piracy than to people using "u" and "ppl"
>> and "coz" repeatedly >.<
>>
> Don't like it, don't read it.
You're winning a lot of friends here...
--
Beware of quantum ducks. Quark! Quark!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>
>> It sounds like you are getting / are very involved with Haskell and
>> know at least more than me about its inner workings.
>>
>> FWIW Why not start writing some of the things that you just mentioned
>> down and make them available.
>>
>> You could provide a web site with simple articles explaining some of
>> these things.
>>
>> You could turn it into a <gasp> published book </gasp>.
>
> I have written one or two small things...
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/332
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/49
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/40
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/37
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/38
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/39
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/34
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/32
>
> ....just the odd item. I stopped when I realised that nobody ever reads
> any of this stuff, because I am the only human alive who gives a ****
> about Haskell.
>
U assume too much, I'm another fan, and congratz on the blog, one of the
coolest I've ever seen that also will help me when i decide to do as
complicated as those.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:49430a1f$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > as well as making quick (and wrong) assumptions about my
> > origins or beliefs
> Yeah like u ddn't do it first.
Difference is, I never mentioned "God" to suggest a belief in a deity on my
part. Little detail, but if "v" are going to be pedantic, let's get those
right.
> This proves u and and U is what matters,
> Fine by me.
Ah, something we can agree on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I had an idea that I could produce a kind of "portfolio" of
>> good-quality written documents (various subject areas and target
>> audiences) and I could show it to people and say "hey dude, I'm
>> clever!" The thing I posted here is a first attempt at one such
>> portfolio document.
>
> That's an excellent idea.
Yay, me!
>> (I'm polishing up my Parsec thing to make another such document. And I
>> may or may not to a layman's overview of computer hardware - I don't
>> know if I could do it justice...)
>
> Give it a go. Worst thing that happens is people say "don't put that one
> in your portfolio."
Yeah, I guess. (Oh, and on THAT subject there really WILL be some
large-scale simplifications!)
> Indeed, you might be in a good position to write documentation rather
> than programs. Consider looking for work as a technical writer.
You're not the first person to make this suggestion.
Unfortunately, technical writers seem to be even rarer than programmers! ;-)
> Yep. It often takes me three or four start-from-scratch rewrites of an
> outline before I fill it in. Often takes longer to do the TOC than the
> paper.
I've had *a tad* more than 4 rewrites on "explaining Haskell". Like, the
other day I found one version from 2004 or something, and I'm like
"JESUS, I've been using Haskell for THAT LONG?! I had no idea!"
But still, after all this time, I can't think of a good way to explain
it all in a coherant way. Have you looked at Real World Haskell? It's
very messy. And it's written by three experts!
Also, there's so many ways to explain Haskell... Do you want the "here's
the elegant theory that powers the language" intro? Or the "this is how
you write useful code" into? At which point to you mention lazy
evaluation? Monads? The type system? Concurrency primitives? Useful
libraries? Do you mention all the built-in list functions, or show how
to derive them from first principles? Does recursion come before ADTs?...
It's pretty hard to figure out! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Yep. It often takes me three or four start-from-scratch rewrites of an
>> outline before I fill it in. Often takes longer to do the TOC than the
>> paper.
>
> I've had *a tad* more than 4 rewrites on "explaining Haskell".
You didn't read. It takes me four complete rewrites of the *table of
contents* before I'm ready to write a 20 page paper.
> But still, after all this time, I can't think of a good way to explain
> it all in a coherant way. Have you looked at Real World Haskell? It's
> very messy. And it's written by three experts!
They may be *too* expert. That's often the problem. They already know it
all, so they can't easily put it down in an order that assumes you don't.
> It's pretty hard to figure out! o_O
All the more reason to give it a go, yes? :-) Just try to figure out what
order to introduce the concepts. Don't fear splitting up a concept into
smaller chunks that make sense in order.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Once u understand how short can sentences be just by adding "u" instead
of "you" and other abbreviations u read faster and u write faster BUT
NO, u can't simply make a small mental effort and take it as an internet
slang and get use to it, if not imitate it... is all the same, our
newsgroup, our way, or the highway... fine, so be it. Bye.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
