Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Your points are well taken, I should have said programing is not 
>> *fundamentally* difficult.
> 
> It is fundamentally difficult. 

I disagree strongly!
It's as fundamentally difficult as any
> applied mathematics. 
I disagree here too. I would say that programming is less difficult that 
much
of applied mathematics. And applied mathematics is in general not 
fundamentally difficult.
For sufficiently small problems, you may be able to
> do it in spite of it being fundamentally difficult.

This would seem to contradict the definition of fundamentally difficult.
> 
>> programming is not difficult.
> 
> Then why do you have such a hard time understanding simple things like 
> OO programs? :-)

They do not seem very simple to me, but a number of folk have said they 
are, so I may
have psyched myself into believing they are too hard and complex like 
many students
psyche themselves into believing that, say, chemistry is difficult and 
thus have a hard time with it.
Unfortunately they are encouraged (unconsciously or otherwise) by 
chemists themselves and
even by teachers. To my mind OOP with all its polysyllabic terminology 
is a fad and an obstructive
one -- but it may be that I am wrong and that my attitude has, so far, 
kept me from diving into OOP,
which in reality is relatively easy. :)

David


>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:

>> programming is not difficult.
> 
> Then why do you have such a hard time understanding simple things like 
> OO programs? :-)
> 
P.S. It may well be that programming itself is easier than understanding 
a written program.
I'm certain that is sometimes (maybe often) true of C programs.

DHB :)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
>> It is fundamentally difficult. 
> I disagree strongly!

How much do you know about it?

It's fundamentally difficult in that each line of a program does something 
new. If it wasn't new, it would already be finished and you'd just use it.

Building a 51-story office building is marginally harder than building a 
50-story office building.  Building a 51-million LOC program is not 2% 
harder than building a 50-million LOC program, because each of those new 
lines is something brand new, doing something never before done in that 
program, and needs to get plugged in. If it wasn't, it would still be a 
50-million LOC program with handfuls of calls to existing subroutines.

By the way, adding that appropriate handful of calls to existing subroutines 
is the area in which OOP powerful. If you don't understand the benefits of 
OOP, it's because you've never written a program difficult enough to need it.

>> It's as fundamentally difficult as any applied mathematics. 
> I disagree here too. I would say that programming is less difficult that 
> much
> of applied mathematics. 

*All* of programming *is* applied mathematics.

> And applied mathematics is in general not fundamentally difficult.

Sure. That's why they teach it in grade school.

>> Then why do you have such a hard time understanding simple things like 
>> OO programs? :-)
> 
> They do not seem very simple to me,

Yet, oddly enough, hundreds of thousands of professional programmers seem to 
manage it all the time, in spite of you claiming it's not particularly 
difficult.

> but it may be that I am wrong and that my attitude has, so far, 
> kept me from diving into OOP,
> which in reality is relatively easy. :)

Or, maybe, you're just not very good at programming, so anytime you look at 
something big enough to be difficult, you decide it's not really because 
it's difficult or you're incapable, but because everyone else in the whole 
world is lying to you for selfish ends?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> P.S. It may well be that programming itself is easier than understanding 
> a written program.

Funny enough, lumps of glass and metal can understand a written program, but 
we've not been able to get any silicon chips to actually be able to write 
significant programs.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>>> It is fundamentally difficult. 
>> I disagree strongly!
> 
> How much do you know about it?
> 

I have programmed a lot, albeit all small stuff. More complex programs 
are of course more difficult
and OOP may be justified if it makes that more easily. Programming 
should not be restricted
to "professional programmers" anymore than writing a paragraph should be 
restricted to
professional writers!
> 
>> And applied mathematics is in general not fundamentally difficult.
> 
> Sure. That's why they teach it in grade school.

Now you're just being silly! In fact they *do* teach it in grade school. 
Two apples plus
three apples equals five apples.

I think I'm going to cut out. This thread has become to personal.
It was fun though. Thanks to all who participated! :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> P.S. It may well be that programming itself is easier than 
>> understanding a written program.
> 
> Funny enough, lumps of glass and metal can understand a written program, 
> but we've not been able to get any silicon chips to actually be able to 
> write significant programs.
> 

I don't see how this comment applies, but at this point, it doesn't matter.
I'm sorry if I hurt some feelings. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Your points are well taken, I should have said programing is not
> > *fundamentally* difficult.
>
> It is fundamentally difficult. It's as fundamentally difficult as any
> applied mathematics. For sufficiently small problems, you may be able to do
> it in spite of it being fundamentally difficult.

Ah - here come people who have a precise *definition* of words like
"fundamentally" and "difficult" :P

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> > This, to me, sounds like saying "Chess isn't hard, only the opponents are!"
> >
> This is a poor analogy. In chess the major difficulty is the opponent,
> but there is no opponent in programming.

Well, the task to solve with the program is, sort of. And in practice it *is* by
far the major difficulty.

Possibly not though if you're programming only as a small hobby.

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> P.S. It may well be that programming itself is easier than understanding
> a written program.
> I'm certain that is sometimes (maybe often) true of C programs.

It is for certain with programs written in a language you as the reader are not
familiar with.

And yes, programmers tend not to put much effort into making their programs
readable, so it often is the case, too, with programs written in a language you
do know quite well.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Ah - here come people who have a precise *definition* of words like
> "fundamentally" and "difficult" :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet

http://www.lips.utexas.edu/ee382c-15005/Readings/Readings1/05-Broo87.pdf


"""
The essence of a software entity is a construct of interlocking concepts: 
data sets, relationships among data items, algorithms, and invocations of 
functions. This essence is abstract in that such a conceptual construct is 
the same under many different representations. It is nonetheless highly 
precise and richly detailed.

I believe the hard part of building software to be the specification, 
design, and testing of this conceptual construct, not the labor of 
representing it and testing the fidelity of the representation. We still 
make syntax errors, to be sure; but they are fuzz compared with the 
conceptual errors in most systems.
"""

"Fundamental" means basic or essential.
"Difficult" means requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or 
comprehend.

So, yeah. If you actually study this stuff, you realize why programming 
(amongst many other fields of endeavor) is fundamentally difficult.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message