[OT] the uses of computing

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 20:50:42 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:42:50 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn 
> <digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > most people are stupid.
>> No disagreement there, but even the smart ones can only learn 
>> so much.
> that's why we should teach kids alot of things while their 
> minds are
> "clear" and ready to absorb alot of knowledge. and, of course, 
> we must
> teach them how to *use* that knowledge.

So much of what's taught today is so worthless that I'm skeptical 
of anyone claiming kids should be taught "a lot," as if you know 
what that is.  And given our long history of barely being able to 
teach any knowledge, with almost no success in getting people to 
"use" it for something original, that seems like a dead end too.  
Better to just let people take their own path and find what works 
best for them.

>> Many people do not learn simple physics in school, and even if 
>> they did, wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out how to 
>> fix a specific mechanical system like a washing machine from 
>> the general physical principles.
> yes, figuring this out without manuals will be hard. but 
> learning
> physics (proper learning of *anything* for that matter) will 
> give 'em
> understanding of base principles (mechanics, electricity, etc) 
> and the
> ability to extract information from books. it's enough for 
> simple fixes
> that doesn't require to produce hi-tech parts.

I disagree, as there is a large gap of knowledge between the base 
principles and the complex systems we build on top.  How many 
people would be able to diagnose and force reallocation of bad 
sectors in their hard disk if hit with that problem, given the 
basics of how hard disks work?  I actually ran into this recently 
and found little info about it, meaning not many people do it.

>> Yeah, we agree if you truly mean making most of what they 
>> learn optional, not just "fun" but still required.  Most of 
>> the stuff we force on kids today, like multiplication tables, 
>> how to divide numbers by hand, or memorizing historical dates, 
>> is utterly useless.
> ah, i hated that so-called "history lessons" where i was forced 
> to
> remebmer that in year i don't care about somebody who i don't 
> care
> about did something i equally don't care about. ;-)
>
> yes, i'm sure that we should teach kids how to do things, not 
> just
> making 'em remember that 4*8 is 32. tell 'em what 
> multiplication is and
> then play games with them, games which involves using of
> multiplication. this way kids will learn how to use 
> multiplication. no
> need to remember any tables.
>
> or let 'em build a simple robot and program it to do some funny 
> things.
> it's exciting and they will learn many things about mechanics,
> electricity, programming...
>
> let 'em play a role of factory manager, for example, and they 
> will
> develop a good understanding of how economics works.
>
> and so on.

We agree that practical application is a better way to motivate 
learning than absorbing theory from a book first, at least for 
most students.  But some kids are just not going to enjoy those 
multiplication games or robot building and I'd say it's better 
for them to choose something else to pursue, rather than forcing 
them to pick up multiplication when it's a completely useless 
skill, now that everybody carries around a calculator with them 
in their phone these days.

>> >> Yet, civilization is made up of people like you, who would 
>> >> all miss those mechanical systems far more than computers.
>> > it's a huge difference between "i miss my washing machine" 
>> > and "all our
>> > communication and data processing systems are foobared".
>> Yet, I bet you they'll want that washing machine working far 
>> more than the internet.
> most people can't see a whole picture. it's bad. we must teach 
> kids to
> understand how different things are interconnected too.

At this point, _I_ can't see your "whole picture." :) I made a 
simple point, that building and fixing washing machines or 
software is something most people don't want to do.  Saying they 
should learn those things anyway doesn't make sense.

>> Isn't that what people use Excel macros for?
> aren't writing excel macros a programming?

My understanding is that you can write simple mathematical 
formulas, which is as far as most probably go, even though it may 
also allow iteration and other programming constructs.  My point, 
that I made below, is that people who need some of the power of 
programming without the training can use cruder tools like these 
most of the time.

>> There are specialized tools for the job, that are more limited 
>> than full programming languages but easier to use for the 
>> average person.
> i never meant that all people should learn "full programming
> languages". they have to know how to write algorithms, but not
> necessary what "pointer" is or what is the difference between 
> manual
> memory management and garbage collecting. yet if i'll show 'em 
> simple
> recursive fibonacci function, they must be able to understand 
> it. hey,
> it's lambda calculus, and lambda calculus is so simple, that 
> even
> 7-year kid can understand it! i checked that, kids are really 
> able to
> understand it. ;-)

I wasn't going that far either, but I'd say even simple python is 
useless for most people.  As for lambda calculus, I don't know 
what that is: I'm not a CS major. :) But even if some kids can 
understand it, that doesn't mean most should learn simple 
programming.

>> All of the above, anything you'd use a portable computer for 
>> that doesn't require much typing and would benefit from a 
>> larger screen than your smartphone.
> instagram and social networks. ;-) two of the most useless 
> things on
> the planet.

I'm not on any of those, but I have occasionally seen them on 
other people's phones.  People love checking each other out and 
those apps give them what they want.  Just because you and I 
don't do it doesn't mean many people don't find it worthwhile.  
It's like TV, most of it is junk but there's some good stuff on 
there too.

>> And you're not limited to the junk on the idiot box, you can 
>> download any video from the web and watch on the go.
> and can't easily mark and categorize that until someone wrote
> "web-service" for it. 'cause for doing it locally i need... ah, 
> to
> write some scripts. and i have no keyboard (no, that on-screen 
> crap may
> be good for tweeting, but it's generally unusable). i.e. 
> tablets *are*
> idiot boxes, just with fancy pictures from over the world.

I believe that's what people use facebook and youtube "likes" and 
tags for.  You may consider anything without a full keyboard an 
idiot box, but there's a lot of stuff on the web that's much 
better than anything on TV, but doesn't require text input.

>> I don't read books anymore
> even technical ones? ;-)

I think the only technical book I've read in the last decade is 
Andrei's TDPL, which I bought in print and got about halfway 
through.  I've probably read bits and pieces of maybe five other 
non-technical books here and there in the same timespan, which 
were all given to me as gifts.  I've never read an ebook, yet I 
read extensively online.  Books are an outdated form, now that we 
have blogs.

>> but with their high-res displays up to 200-300 ppi these days, 
>> reading text is very nice on tablets too.
> i prefer to use some specialised device to reading text. it's 
> smaller,
> it was made especially for reading texts and it can last alot 
> longer
> without recharging.

I've never understood the appeal of e-ink devices, but my 10", 
1.3 lb tablet is fatiguing to hold for extended periods of time, 
constantly reloads webpages because it vacates their memory, and 
only lasts for about 5-6 hours of uninterrupted use, so I don't 
use it as much as I thought I would when I got it almost two 
years ago.  I'm hopeful that a smaller, newer tablet will fix 
most of those issues, whenever I pick up my next one.

> i mean that tablets can do all that things, but specialised 
> devices are
> just better. and if i know that i'll have to spend some time 
> waithing
> for something, i'll take my player and "ebook" with me. or 
> subnotebook
> -- hey, it has real keyboard!

It sounds like you have different priorities than others.  That's 
great, you can carry around all those devices and they can carry 
around their tablets. :)

>> Actually, the progression went the other way, people dropped 
>> text UIs for graphical UIs. :)
> that's 'cause they never used good UIs and we have no truly 
> component
> environments. Oberon system was great even with it's TUI, and 
> it was
> really exciting with it's gadgets UI. i'm still missing my 
> Oberon
> system.

I don't know much about Oberon, but that gadgets UI sounds like 
it's still a GUI.

> by the way, if D will develop good runtime reflection (which is
> required for precise and moving GCs anyway), we can resurrect 
> Oberon
> gadgets with it.
> fast compiler + runtime reflection + dynamic modules == 
> excellent
> component system.
>
>> I'm not saying _you_ need to leave the terminal, but for most 
>> people GUI tools like Automator are enough.
> terminal is not the best thing too. ;-) and i have nothing 
> against
> automator-like tools when they allow flexible scripting when 
> user needs
> it. but anyway such tools just trying to achieve what component 
> system
> has out of the box. ;-)
>
> there is no such thing as "application" in true component 
> system (nor
> even a "file" for that matter). user can combine and glue 
> components in
> any way he wants, building anything he wants.
>
> e-mail reader? ok, create new document, drop treeview component 
> into
> it, drop html viewer into it, drop "e-mail data source" into it,
> connect 'em and voila! you have a simple working e-mail reader!
>
> want some filtering? drop proxy data source into document, 
> connect it
> to e-mail data source, reconnect tree view to proxy, write some 
> filters
> and... voila, you have e-mail reader with filtering.
>
> save this document and voila: you have "e-mail reading 
> application"!
>
> the magic works both ways: take complex e-mail reading 
> application,
> replace some components, add another components -- and you have 
> e-mail
> reading application which is customized to your tasks.
>
> open two documents -- and you'll have two automatically 
> synchronized
> readers.

I actually agree with you that some sort of component system like 
that is likely the future, even if it's only ultimately used to 
make developers' lives easier and largely unconfigured by users 
themselves, though I haven't looked much into the complex 
historical reasons why it hasn't happened yet.

> have you ever seen BlackBox Component Builder? it's written in
> Component Pascal, but the basic principles are 
> language-independent.
> i'm dreaming about BCB with D as base language...

No, never heard of it, sounds interesting.

>> I wouldn't be so quick to call it "stupid" as much as learning 
>> takes effort and you only have so much time and effort to 
>> learn so much stuff.  Better to focus on the stuff that 
>> interests you and leave the programming to others, at least 
>> for most people.
> simple scripting *is* programming! ;-) i'm not talking about 
> "everybody
> must know how to write kernel module" here, as i mentioned 
> above. it's
> more like writing in general: most people can write, but we 
> still have
> professional writers. yet almost anyone can write a page of text
> describing what he did last evening. this will not be a 
> bestseller ;-),
> of couse, but there's no need to hire a professional writer for 
> such
> task.

I'd say simple scripting is more like learning how to use basic 
Photoshop, a niche skill that most people don't need and don't 
want to learn, so they pay the few people who enjoy doing it 
instead.