Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > Linear thinking vs essential thinking

Reply
Thread Tools

Linear thinking vs essential thinking

 
 
optimistx
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2009
In profiling it is typical that some few lines of the code take a major part
of the total execution time.
Graphically like this( letters a program part names, numbers time consumed
in time units) :

A: 0000000000 1111111111 2222222222 3333333333 4444444444 555555555 666
B: 0000000000 1111111111 2222222
C: 0000000000 1
D: 000
E: 00
F: 0
G: 0
H: 0
I:
J:
K:
L:
M:
N:

If one tries to reduce to execution time it is useful to concentrate to A,
and perhaps to B, C but
forget D..N totally.

This is probably a trivial fact for every reader when talking about program
execution time or memory usage.

But what about learning javascript, is there also this kind of phenomenon?

Some people seem to think linearly all the time: proceed pedantically from A
to N (or from N to A ), devoting as much time and attention to all the
items. For them there is no intermediate possibility: either one has know
thoroughly every item A, B,...N, or none.

Knowing A, B, C well and knowing very little or hardly anything about D..N
is very difficult to imagine for them. To change the attitudes, point of
views, or even imagine others to have different point of views is almost
impossible for them.

Of course, if one has much time in one's disposal, e.g. 10 years of full
time job in javascript and additional hobby time, one has learnt all the
items A...N thoroughly.

If one tries to simply express some rule of thumb or recommendation about
javascript here, e.g. about passing objects to functions , the discussion
goes from the essential A to random parts in K or L, and after a while a
non-expert has not any good idea, how things are. Or a simple, clear, easy
to understand and maintain example is rejected on the basis that it might
waste some microseconds during the whole lifetime of the program. Sigh.

If one tries to learn a new natural language, it is sensible to learn some
frequently used things first and not wait some years first to open one's
mouth publicly.

I would like to see the same to happen here: pedagocically correct approach,
concentrating to the essential things. Linear thinking has its advantages
at the most advanced level, but in learning it is better to simplify things.











 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
The Natural Philosopher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2009
optimistx wrote:
> In profiling it is typical that some few lines of the code take a major
> part of the total execution time.
> Graphically like this( letters a program part names, numbers time
> consumed in time units) :
>
> A: 0000000000 1111111111 2222222222 3333333333 4444444444 555555555 666
> B: 0000000000 1111111111 2222222
> C: 0000000000 1
> D: 000
> E: 00
> F: 0
> G: 0
> H: 0
> I:
> J:
> K:
> L:
> M:
> N:
>
> If one tries to reduce to execution time it is useful to concentrate to
> A, and perhaps to B, C but
> forget D..N totally.
>
> This is probably a trivial fact for every reader when talking about
> program execution time or memory usage.
>
> But what about learning javascript, is there also this kind of phenomenon?
>
> Some people seem to think linearly all the time: proceed pedantically
> from A to N (or from N to A ), devoting as much time and attention to
> all the items. For them there is no intermediate possibility: either one
> has know thoroughly every item A, B,...N, or none.
>
> Knowing A, B, C well and knowing very little or hardly anything about
> D..N is very difficult to imagine for them. To change the attitudes,
> point of views, or even imagine others to have different point of views
> is almost impossible for them.
>
> Of course, if one has much time in one's disposal, e.g. 10 years of full
> time job in javascript and additional hobby time, one has learnt all the
> items A...N thoroughly.
>
> If one tries to simply express some rule of thumb or recommendation
> about javascript here, e.g. about passing objects to functions , the
> discussion goes from the essential A to random parts in K or L, and
> after a while a non-expert has not any good idea, how things are. Or a
> simple, clear, easy to understand and maintain example is rejected on
> the basis that it might waste some microseconds during the whole
> lifetime of the program. Sigh.
>
> If one tries to learn a new natural language, it is sensible to learn
> some frequently used things first and not wait some years first to open
> one's mouth publicly.
>
> I would like to see the same to happen here: pedagocically correct
> approach, concentrating to the essential things. Linear thinking has
> its advantages at the most advanced level, but in learning it is better
> to simplify things.
>


Interesting point, and not one related to javascript at all, per se.

Having been under pressure to deliver all my ligfe, my appraiocjh is simply.

Only learn enough to get the job in hand done sufficiently well, and
only learn what is in fact a necessary depth for the job in hand.

I am running with a couple of graphics programs. CAD mainly., at least
75% of the commands I do not actually use that much, and 50% I don't
even know what they do. Same with javascript.

Only as you get exposed to more and more of an interpreter, a language
or a software tool of any sort, do you actually starrt to think 'surely
there is a better way', and ask others.

The key is faced with a mass to learn, you can't learn it all.
Instantly. What is needful, is the way to know exactly which parts of
'TFM' to actually 'R' as it were.

So, places like this have intense vale in that 'I've got this
incredibly long 'if then else if then else construct' and someone says

"switch"?

and you look up switch..and by golly, it's neater!

I've always let the reasl actual problem at hand be my driver, and those
that have trod teh paths before, my guides. Bugger the theory,
ultimately these are just tools, and when I pick up a chainsaw, I want
to cut firewood with it, not commit massacres or sculpt icebergs.

Need to know only. Life is too short, unless you are either deep in
development of a language, or want to become a netgroup court holder,
whose self image depends on having a snotty answer to every question
about the subject in hand.

The sort of person who reads the manual cover to cover but doesn't
actually deliver any real world code.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gregor Kofler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2009
optimistx meinte:

[snip]

> Some people seem to think linearly all the time: proceed pedantically
> from A to N (or from N to A ), devoting as much time and attention to
> all the items. For them there is no intermediate possibility: either one
> has know thoroughly every item A, B,...N, or none.
>
> Knowing A, B, C well and knowing very little or hardly anything about
> D..N is very difficult to imagine for them. To change the attitudes,
> point of views, or even imagine others to have different point of views
> is almost impossible for them.


Another rant about the pedants in this NG I suppose. Haven't we've been
"discussing" this umpteenth times?

> If one tries to simply express some rule of thumb or recommendation
> about javascript here, e.g. about passing objects to functions , the
> discussion goes from the essential A to random parts in K or L, and
> after a while a non-expert has not any good idea, how things are. Or a
> simple, clear, easy to understand and maintain example is rejected on
> the basis that it might waste some microseconds during the whole
> lifetime of the program. Sigh.


You are not forced to read, understand or learn.

[snip]

> I would like to see the same to happen here: pedagocically correct
> approach, concentrating to the essential things.


This is a *newsgroup* not some tutorial. Come to terms with that.

Gregor


--
http://www.gregorkofler.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
optimistx
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-28-2009
Gregor Kofler wrote:
> Another rant about the pedants in this NG I suppose. Haven't we've
> been "discussing" this umpteenth times?


In a way yes, but I would be very curious to see some topics, which have not
been
discussed umpteen times with some value of 'this'.
....
>
> You are not forced to read, understand or learn.
>

Anyhow, I would like to understand and learn in a friendly atmosphere.
....
>
> This is a *newsgroup* not some tutorial. Come to terms with that.
>
> Gregor


I have thought FAQ is supposed to be a tutorial, and people are supposed
to read this newsgroup archives to learn, and only as a last resort
ask advice here.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Dr J R Stockton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-29-2009
In comp.lang.javascript message <4ae89cac$0$3867$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:34:02, optimistx <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:

>I have thought FAQ is supposed to be a tutorial, and people are supposed
>to read this newsgroup archives to learn, and only as a last resort
>ask advice here.


A very silly notion, since the archives currently contain 170664
threads, many of which are not instantly recognisable as rubbish, but
much of which is nevertheless out of date, superseded, or wrong.

For a tutorial, one should seek web sites maintained by those
who both know the subject and understand how to do technical
communication for the general user community (tests for the
latter include a reader-friendly method of offering corrections,
and an effective method of heeding the latter).

All that is reasonable is to ask that people look in the FAQ and in
threads active within the last week or so.

Remember : Thomas Lahn is there to serve as a prime bad example.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLSFOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING ANDMAINTAINING... Oanh Bui C++ 0 04-27-2009 12:51 PM
3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLSFOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING ANDMAINTAINING... Oanh Bui C Programming 0 04-27-2009 12:51 PM
3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLSFOR STARTING AND MAINTAINING...3 ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR STARTING ANDMAINTAINING... Oanh Bui Python 0 04-27-2009 12:46 PM
Code for linear congruences, diophantine linear equations alessandra_cabrini@virgilio.it Java 1 11-15-2005 12:23 PM
WHY?!? Why am i thinking i need an SLR, and thinking of going 35mm? Steven C \(Doktersteve\) Digital Photography 13 02-13-2004 08:42 PM



Advertisments