andrew cooke wrote:
MRAB wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:58:48 +0200, Lada Kugis wrote:
Why do we try to create languages that are intuitive to humans, then ?
Because of the foolish hope that sufficiently easy syntax will make
excellent programmers out of average people.
Programming is not intuitive to humans. *Counting* isn't intuitive to
humans -- children need to learn how to count.
[snip]
Research suggests that your wrong. For example, even baby chicks can
count:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7975260.stm
i saw that earlier today. it's really pushing the definition of "count",
at least as described there.
there have been similar experiments where they address whether the animal
is actually looking at "how big" the total "pile" is rather than counting
(do they know the difference between two small things and one big thing,
for example). that experiment doesn't seem to address this.
Just occurred to me. Chicks and eggs, on 1 April, with Easter
approaching. Hmm...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
