Subject:
|
learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:23:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
979 times
|
| |
|
|
[removed lugnet.off-topic.debate from ng-post list]
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) wrote:
> > Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > It also means there are 50 thousand rules to learn, and 50 million
> > > exceptions to those rules.
> >
> > Luckily human beings are very good at that. In fact, the rules seem
> > to be mostly descriptive -- we naturally say things a certain way, and
> > then retroactively we look and say, "ok, that's the right way to say it
> > because of such-and-such-rule". Human minds are good at language -- the
> > behavior operates at a subconscious level and we don't have to think
> > about the rules to form a sentence. We just do it, and then if we want
> > figure out the rules as an academic exercise.
>
> It's a good thing human minds are good at language -- can you imagine if
> parents actually had to teach their children to speak? That would be
> painful. Believe me, I know -- I tried for 4 years. *Then* my kid
> decided he was ready to talk.
I had 2 years of German and didn't end up learning too much of it because
it was from books and tapes and a little bit of conversation in class. I
can still write some simple sentences and read some things 15 years later,
and the grammar is still pretty solid in my head, but it's nothing like
actually learning the language from being there... Now imagine if you
could learn programming languages that way -- instead of reading a book
to learn the syntax, semantics, and idioms, you heard people talking it
all day long...
"Proc defun lambda dict?"
"For if while do, repeat setq cons."
"Def go, printf!"
...and you just picked it up over time. :-) Would that result in lots of
good programmers or lots of bad programmers? (Discuss ;) Could a computer
programming language be designed such that it could be learned the same way
that natural language as "picked up" over time? Would that be good or bad?
> But some people are better doing weird rules than others. My son (same
> one) is very bright, but he's a horrible[1] speller. He didn't respond
> well to phonics training, either. He just can't deal with all the stupid
> exceptions and minor variations.
>
> My other son is a very good speller. Why does this difference exist
> between two very similar kids? I don't know; go ask your geneticist.
That's wild! I think it would also be interesting to see what career paths
they choose. Are they showing strong tendencies to anything in particular
yet?
> Steve
>
> [1] OK, not horrible. Just not as good as I'd like. Or as good as he'd
> like--he never pretests out of his weekly spelling assignments.
Steve, it's really great to hear you say "as good as *he'd* like" rather
than "as good as *I'd* like." :-) LEGO parents make more reasonable
parents, I think. :-)
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
| (...) "What The--?! Why don't we use words we already know?" And thus the evil in Grace Hopper begat COBOL. ... Can you imagine the spelling errors that would pop up in code if programming languages were spoken? :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) It's a good thing human minds are good at language -- can you imagine if parents actually had to teach their children to speak? That would be painful. Believe me, I know -- I tried for 4 years. *Then* my kid decided he was ready to talk. But (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
