Linear thinking vs essential thinking

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by optimistx, Oct 28, 2009.

  1. optimistx

    optimistx Guest

    In profiling it is typical that some few lines of the code take a major part
    of the total execution time.
    Graphically like this( letters a program part names, numbers time consumed
    in time units) :

    A: 0000000000 1111111111 2222222222 3333333333 4444444444 555555555 666
    B: 0000000000 1111111111 2222222
    C: 0000000000 1
    D: 000
    E: 00
    F: 0
    G: 0
    H: 0
    I:
    J:
    K:
    L:
    M:
    N:

    If one tries to reduce to execution time it is useful to concentrate to A,
    and perhaps to B, C but
    forget D..N totally.

    This is probably a trivial fact for every reader when talking about program
    execution time or memory usage.

    But what about learning javascript, is there also this kind of phenomenon?

    Some people seem to think linearly all the time: proceed pedantically from A
    to N (or from N to A ), devoting as much time and attention to all the
    items. For them there is no intermediate possibility: either one has know
    thoroughly every item A, B,...N, or none.

    Knowing A, B, C well and knowing very little or hardly anything about D..N
    is very difficult to imagine for them. To change the attitudes, point of
    views, or even imagine others to have different point of views is almost
    impossible for them.

    Of course, if one has much time in one's disposal, e.g. 10 years of full
    time job in javascript and additional hobby time, one has learnt all the
    items A...N thoroughly.

    If one tries to simply express some rule of thumb or recommendation about
    javascript here, e.g. about passing objects to functions , the discussion
    goes from the essential A to random parts in K or L, and after a while a
    non-expert has not any good idea, how things are. Or a simple, clear, easy
    to understand and maintain example is rejected on the basis that it might
    waste some microseconds during the whole lifetime of the program. Sigh.

    If one tries to learn a new natural language, it is sensible to learn some
    frequently used things first and not wait some years first to open one's
    mouth publicly.

    I would like to see the same to happen here: pedagocically correct approach,
    concentrating to the essential things. Linear thinking has its advantages
    at the most advanced level, but in learning it is better to simplify things.
    optimistx, Oct 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. optimistx wrote:
    > In profiling it is typical that some few lines of the code take a major
    > part of the total execution time.
    > Graphically like this( letters a program part names, numbers time
    > consumed in time units) :
    >
    > A: 0000000000 1111111111 2222222222 3333333333 4444444444 555555555 666
    > B: 0000000000 1111111111 2222222
    > C: 0000000000 1
    > D: 000
    > E: 00
    > F: 0
    > G: 0
    > H: 0
    > I:
    > J:
    > K:
    > L:
    > M:
    > N:
    >
    > If one tries to reduce to execution time it is useful to concentrate to
    > A, and perhaps to B, C but
    > forget D..N totally.
    >
    > This is probably a trivial fact for every reader when talking about
    > program execution time or memory usage.
    >
    > But what about learning javascript, is there also this kind of phenomenon?
    >
    > Some people seem to think linearly all the time: proceed pedantically
    > from A to N (or from N to A ), devoting as much time and attention to
    > all the items. For them there is no intermediate possibility: either one
    > has know thoroughly every item A, B,...N, or none.
    >
    > Knowing A, B, C well and knowing very little or hardly anything about
    > D..N is very difficult to imagine for them. To change the attitudes,
    > point of views, or even imagine others to have different point of views
    > is almost impossible for them.
    >
    > Of course, if one has much time in one's disposal, e.g. 10 years of full
    > time job in javascript and additional hobby time, one has learnt all the
    > items A...N thoroughly.
    >
    > If one tries to simply express some rule of thumb or recommendation
    > about javascript here, e.g. about passing objects to functions , the
    > discussion goes from the essential A to random parts in K or L, and
    > after a while a non-expert has not any good idea, how things are. Or a
    > simple, clear, easy to understand and maintain example is rejected on
    > the basis that it might waste some microseconds during the whole
    > lifetime of the program. Sigh.
    >
    > If one tries to learn a new natural language, it is sensible to learn
    > some frequently used things first and not wait some years first to open
    > one's mouth publicly.
    >
    > I would like to see the same to happen here: pedagocically correct
    > approach, concentrating to the essential things. Linear thinking has
    > its advantages at the most advanced level, but in learning it is better
    > to simplify things.
    >


    Interesting point, and not one related to javascript at all, per se.

    Having been under pressure to deliver all my ligfe, my appraiocjh is simply.

    Only learn enough to get the job in hand done sufficiently well, and
    only learn what is in fact a necessary depth for the job in hand.

    I am running with a couple of graphics programs. CAD mainly., at least
    75% of the commands I do not actually use that much, and 50% I don't
    even know what they do. Same with javascript.

    Only as you get exposed to more and more of an interpreter, a language
    or a software tool of any sort, do you actually starrt to think 'surely
    there is a better way', and ask others.

    The key is faced with a mass to learn, you can't learn it all.
    Instantly. What is needful, is the way to know exactly which parts of
    'TFM' to actually 'R' as it were.

    So, places like this have intense vale in that 'I've got this
    incredibly long 'if then else if then else construct' and someone says

    "switch"?

    and you look up switch..and by golly, it's neater!

    I've always let the reasl actual problem at hand be my driver, and those
    that have trod teh paths before, my guides. Bugger the theory,
    ultimately these are just tools, and when I pick up a chainsaw, I want
    to cut firewood with it, not commit massacres or sculpt icebergs.

    Need to know only. Life is too short, unless you are either deep in
    development of a language, or want to become a netgroup court holder,
    whose self image depends on having a snotty answer to every question
    about the subject in hand.

    The sort of person who reads the manual cover to cover but doesn't
    actually deliver any real world code.



    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    The Natural Philosopher, Oct 28, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. optimistx meinte:

    [snip]

    > Some people seem to think linearly all the time: proceed pedantically
    > from A to N (or from N to A ), devoting as much time and attention to
    > all the items. For them there is no intermediate possibility: either one
    > has know thoroughly every item A, B,...N, or none.
    >
    > Knowing A, B, C well and knowing very little or hardly anything about
    > D..N is very difficult to imagine for them. To change the attitudes,
    > point of views, or even imagine others to have different point of views
    > is almost impossible for them.


    Another rant about the pedants in this NG I suppose. Haven't we've been
    "discussing" this umpteenth times?

    > If one tries to simply express some rule of thumb or recommendation
    > about javascript here, e.g. about passing objects to functions , the
    > discussion goes from the essential A to random parts in K or L, and
    > after a while a non-expert has not any good idea, how things are. Or a
    > simple, clear, easy to understand and maintain example is rejected on
    > the basis that it might waste some microseconds during the whole
    > lifetime of the program. Sigh.


    You are not forced to read, understand or learn.

    [snip]

    > I would like to see the same to happen here: pedagocically correct
    > approach, concentrating to the essential things.


    This is a *newsgroup* not some tutorial. Come to terms with that.

    Gregor


    --
    http://www.gregorkofler.com
    Gregor Kofler, Oct 28, 2009
    #3
  4. optimistx

    optimistx Guest

    Gregor Kofler wrote:
    > Another rant about the pedants in this NG I suppose. Haven't we've
    > been "discussing" this umpteenth times?


    In a way yes, but I would be very curious to see some topics, which have not
    been
    discussed umpteen times with some value of 'this'.
    ....
    >
    > You are not forced to read, understand or learn.
    >

    Anyhow, I would like to understand and learn in a friendly atmosphere.
    ....
    >
    > This is a *newsgroup* not some tutorial. Come to terms with that.
    >
    > Gregor


    I have thought FAQ is supposed to be a tutorial, and people are supposed
    to read this newsgroup archives to learn, and only as a last resort
    ask advice here.
    optimistx, Oct 28, 2009
    #4
  5. In comp.lang.javascript message <4ae89cac$0$3867$>,
    Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:34:02, optimistx <> posted:

    >I have thought FAQ is supposed to be a tutorial, and people are supposed
    >to read this newsgroup archives to learn, and only as a last resort
    >ask advice here.


    A very silly notion, since the archives currently contain 170664
    threads, many of which are not instantly recognisable as rubbish, but
    much of which is nevertheless out of date, superseded, or wrong.

    For a tutorial, one should seek web sites maintained by those
    who both know the subject and understand how to do technical
    communication for the general user community (tests for the
    latter include a reader-friendly method of offering corrections,
    and an effective method of heeding the latter).

    All that is reasonable is to ask that people look in the FAQ and in
    threads active within the last week or so.

    Remember : Thomas Lahn is there to serve as a prime bad example.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
    Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
    No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
    Dr J R Stockton, Oct 29, 2009
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,111
    Roedy Green
    Nov 15, 2005
  2. tom fredriksen
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    805
    Monique Y. Mudama
    Feb 9, 2006
  3. xyZed
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    655
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    488
    Mark Rae
    May 5, 2006
  5. Steven T. Hatton
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    558
    Steven T. Hatton
    Nov 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page