[LAU] Look ma, I'm in the paper :)

[jonetsu]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 23:29:31 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona at gmail.com> wrote:

> To unwrap that, if I am writing a game and I need to know how to
> write a javascript random number generator, I don't need to scan
> complete code of someone else's program. I need only one part - the
> random number generator algorithm.

If you only need to buy carrots, why would you spend 30 minutes waling
up and down all aisles in a supermarket ?

Hopefully you will get a RNG from a library instead, isn't that the
case. 

> In other words, I am not arguing that looking at someone's code is
> unnecessary, I am arguing that having complete code of a program is
> usually not required to learn to code. 

I suspect 'learn to code' has something to do with a previous statement
about C++ being like C.  Using C++ in 3 days.  

> It is good sometimes, perhaps
> it is very useful, but this is not necessary. Many people learn to
> program without being exposed to a complete open source project.

Open Source provides free source code to everyone.  The movement was
pushed by many professionals.  This is not Windows freeware.
 
> Another important point is that when you are working in a company,
> other people's code is not the only thing that teaches you. Often,
> there are also people in the company who will actually walk you
> though the code. Just having the code available is not necessarily
> helpful.

Why is this downgraded to a comparison between corporate settings and
Open Source ? 

The original question was:

"Why do you feel open source is important, and what for you is the most
important aspect of Linux audio?"

> How can my argument be defeated? With evidence. It would be
> interesting to see stats on major contributions to learning to code.
> If this data contradicts my argument - I would definitely follow the
> evidence.

Again, 'learning to code' is kinda suspicious.
 
> But using "background knowledge" about the world, it seems to me that
> most people know little about open source and are unlikely to learn
> by opening a program they like and start reading through the code.

Then these future developers, designers of software, are missing
something.  Outsourcing in sight ?

> And, finally, people rarely "know a programming language". You still
> know only parts of it and only certain applications. Even if you know
> a lot about C++, 

You mean about object orientation ?

> it is applied differently to graphics, it is applied
> differently to GUI, differently to sound, differently to text,
> compression, databases, etc. Each application requires specialized
> knowledge.

That specialized knowledge is not a function of the language.  A
carpenter can be Chinese, one can program compression bits in
assembler, one can write middleware in Erlang.