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

[Louigi Verona]

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

Haha! By saying that it is "like C" I did not mean that it is *exactly*
like C++. I know that C++ is a very different language and I know the C++
object oriented approach. It exists in PHP as well.

By being "like C" I meant that you can read code and at least understand
something. If you look at Assembly code knowing only C, you would not
understand a thing.

And while I cannot name myself a C++ programmer, I did code a lot in C++,
especially in university, and read Bjarne Stroustrup's book on the C++
paradigm.


"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."

This is a good and valid point, but "knowing programming language" is
always an application of it to some field. I believe that this is relevant
to our discussion, where I am talking about the fact that *just* seeing
code is simply not enough.


" Again, 'learning to code' is kinda suspicious."

I don't understand what you mean here.


"The original question was:"

I am not discussing the original question. The discussion did branch out a
bit.




On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:59 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu at teksavvy.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>



-- 
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20161103/086eb91e/attachment.html>