Linear thinking vs essential thinking

[optimistx]

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.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

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.

 

[Gregor Kofler]

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

 

[optimistx]

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.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,

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.