Bartosz about Chapel

[Nick Sabalausky]

"dsimcha" <dsimcha at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:j9i4tf$u4s$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> Vote++.  Really bad names hurt, but there's no such thing as a perfect 
> name.  Any name will be confusing in some context unless it's 
> ridiculouslyVerboseAndWastesALotOfSpaceAndIsImpossibleToTypeOrRead. Even 
> when names do get confusing, this can be solved by using static import for 
> whatever module the most confusion is coming from.  (For example, due to 
> its terse naming scheme I usually use static import for std.file.)  Typing 
> the fully qualified name resolves any confusion.
>
>...........
>
> Interesting argument and I completely agree.  This illustrates a big 
> difference between engineers/programmers/natural scientists and 
> mathematicians/computer scientists:  The former view 
> equations/theory/models as a convenient approximation of reality, to be 
> abandoned when it's no longer useful, and view all abstractions as leaky. 
> To the latter, the theory/equations/models have a life of their own.
>
> D is a language designed by an engineering mind (two if you count Andrei, 
> who did his undergrad in EE but his Ph.D. in computer science), for 
> engineering minds.  I also have an engineering/natural science background 
> and very little formal comp sci or theoretical/abstract mathematics 
> training, which might explain D's appeal to me.  Those that are into 
> theoretical purity will unavoidably hate the language.  Those that care 
> more about being able to abstract away exactly what they want to and 
> nothing more will love it.
>
>...........
>
> Again, pretty insightful.  One of the conclusions I've come to in terms of 
> pedagogy is that no amount of rote knowledge can ever substitute for 
> having a good mental model of a system.  When I was an undergrad the 
> biggest difference I noticed between the successful and unsuccessful 
> students was that the successful ones would try to form a comprehensive 
> mental model of the material, where the unsuccessful students would focus 
> on rote memorizing facts and procedures.  Similarly, when I TA'd a course 
> a couple years ago, I tried to encourage the professor to ask exam 
> questions that were as hard as possible to get by rote (no canned 
> procedure would work) but as easy as possible if you had a solid mental 
> model of the material.

This is a fantastic post, you hit the nail right on the head on all three 
parts, and couldn't have worded any of it better. Strongly agree on all of 
it. This should be framed and hung on the walls at every school. (Well, ok, 
maybe the first part wouldn't be relevent at some schools in some 
disciplines... ;))

In my school experience (both high school and college), the students who 
were well versed in and heavily focused on rote regurgitation were 
consistently the ones with the best grades, and the ones who where therefore 
considered to be "smart" even though they couldn't have reasoned to save 
their lives. That *needs* to change.