I'm sorry, that was too hard to follow. First give me the qualitative rundown of what you are trying to say, then give the the quantitative formula. And use symbols that a blub programmer can recognize in the formula, please.
There's something in there about wanting a more flexible type system, but without completely hiding it in an implicit / dynamic system, but I'm not quite getting it as presented. Too bad.
Sometimes articles are over my head too. Sometimes I work on figuring them out and learn something. Sometimes I give up because I don't have the time or energy. However, I don't blame the author for my ignorance.
It's not blaming the author to notice that he doesn't appear very interested in this essay with communicating with most people in terms they'll understand. Sure, it's just his style, but it's hard to be optimistic about how much buy-in he'll get for his plan "to re-do the introductory curriculum in Computer Science to modernize it".
I guess I'm not disagreeing with you, but I personally find his style exhilarating. I mean, come on:
Dijkstra used to say “beauty is our business”, to which I would add that life is too short, and bright minds too precious, to waste on ugly things. And if you take this point of view seriously, the best and the brightest are drawn to, rather than repulsed by, the field. Pace some of my colleagues at a Major Institute of Technology, students absolutely do love to program and do love the beauty of code, provided that the code you ask them to write is, in fact, beautiful. There is nothing more dreary than the corporate bureaucracy of OOP, and few things more lovely than the mathematical elegance of FP.
Comments
I'm sorry, that was too hard to follow. First give me the qualitative rundown of what you are trying to say, then give the the quantitative formula. And use symbols that a blub programmer can recognize in the formula, please.
There's something in there about wanting a more flexible type system, but without completely hiding it in an implicit / dynamic system, but I'm not quite getting it as presented. Too bad.
Sometimes articles are over my head too. Sometimes I work on figuring them out and learn something. Sometimes I give up because I don't have the time or energy. However, I don't blame the author for my ignorance.
It's not blaming the author to notice that he doesn't appear very interested in this essay with communicating with most people in terms they'll understand. Sure, it's just his style, but it's hard to be optimistic about how much buy-in he'll get for his plan "to re-do the introductory curriculum in Computer Science to modernize it".
I guess I'm not disagreeing with you, but I personally find his style exhilarating. I mean, come on:
Dijkstra used to say “beauty is our business”, to which I would add that life is too short, and bright minds too precious, to waste on ugly things. And if you take this point of view seriously, the best and the brightest are drawn to, rather than repulsed by, the field. Pace some of my colleagues at a Major Institute of Technology, students absolutely do love to program and do love the beauty of code, provided that the code you ask them to write is, in fact, beautiful. There is nothing more dreary than the corporate bureaucracy of OOP, and few things more lovely than the mathematical elegance of FP.
Perhaps I would find it more exhilarating if it didn't directly contradict my own experience, and that of many others.