Yishay Mor wrote:
> Meanwhile, here's a quote I found nice (if slightly poetic). Since my
> interest is focused more on learning by programming than learning to
> program, I stroke a cord:
> "This must be the secret of those magical experiences I had, first with
> those construction sets and, later, with languages like LOGO. There's
> something "universal" about the ways that big things don't depend so
> much on what's inside their little parts. What matters is more how the
> parts affect each other – and less about what they are, themselves.
If you're interested in _learning_, you may want to investigate the more
general literature in the field of education and cognitive science.
They tackle questions like "is it better to teach knowledge through
abstract concepts or concrete examples?" and "do people learn better by
going through all the details of white boxes or seeing the big picture
in a set of black boxes?"
Here are a couple of papers in the same vein as the quote. They aren't
about programmer per se, nor are they rigorous scientifically, but you
may find the ideas in them relevant:
Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing Transparency and Aesthetics Back to
Scientific Investigation
http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/archive/proposal.html
Epistemological Pluralism and the Revaluation of the Concrete
http://www.papert.org/articles/EpistemologicalPluralism.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PPIG Discuss List ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
