There is something to be said for simplicity in teaching programming, since there is a segment of programming examples that use "difficult" math as examples of writing programs.
Or worse, make the code harder to read...
Let's take this elixir example:
add = fn a, b -> a + b end
A new person reading that code is going to be a bit confused:
add = fn(a, b) -> a + b end
... is more readable.
Code examples are filled with examples of learning something rather trivial, but instead of using a simpler example, we are led to solve the Fibonacci sequence.
I'm not that bad with math. But I'm not that great either. Still, I consider myself a pretty good programmer.
But man, using those math examples -- is a BIG turnoff and it slowed my learning a lot.
Why did you force yourself to read such an inane work and then spend/waste even more time reviewing it? You need to review your priorities.
I read the first chapter review skimmed the rest and filed your report in the waste bin.
I read the whole thing, albeit with a rising sense of irk, just to see if they'd ever get around to grasping the pedagogical value of the book.
But no, the author is stuck in a narrow rut of personal loathings, and ended up publishing a pernicious and unedifying exercise in missing the point that ultimately reveals more about the reviewer than then reviewed.
The author centers his attack on the book around some literal interpretation of the problem domain that he seems very irritated about, and this distracts him from the very sound lessons the book provides about measuring and communicating OO designs.
There is something to be said for simplicity in teaching programming, since there is a segment of programming examples that use "difficult" math as examples of writing programs.
Or worse, make the code harder to read...
Let's take this elixir example:
add = fn a, b -> a + b end
A new person reading that code is going to be a bit confused:
add = fn(a, b) -> a + b end
... is more readable.
Code examples are filled with examples of learning something rather trivial, but instead of using a simpler example, we are led to solve the Fibonacci sequence.
I'm not that bad with math. But I'm not that great either. Still, I consider myself a pretty good programmer.
But man, using those math examples -- is a BIG turnoff and it slowed my learning a lot.
(Self taught computer programmer)