+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Cognitive load of learning syntax and libraries

  1. #1
    Oliphaunt Jizzelbin's avatar
    Jul 2013
    in a mouth

    Default Cognitive load of learning syntax and libraries

    Applies, I think equally well to natural as artificial languages, I suppose. Oh and BTW isn't that the main difference, anyway? One has telos with an artificial language, where natural languages have some constraints that are mostly alogical (NB I did not say illogical).

    Hope I said that right.

    So, yeah, like anyway I was rereading some of Milewski's stuff on something about stuff and so the question occurred to me.

    Yeah, whatever, but I think it's a pretty good question.

    So go ahead and answer it, yo.

    ETA oh yeah so like D language is a lot like C in syntax, but it has good stuff you have to kind of fuck around with and even then you can't really do it in C++ or whatever, but I spend so much time learning a bunch of C++ bullshit with the libraries, and always come back (in my own time) to C for the real intuition, and then Haskell, my one I've committed to for a few months as my testing lab for doing lambda calculus IRL (as opposed to on paper, which I believe is the correct way to start and end all CS things, unlike my assnecked peers who seem to undervalue seeing daylight and think work == hours spent staring at a screen, which is not the correct way to do things). IMO.

    so, yeah, like, fucking A. Yeah, the title, I guess. Do that.
    Last edited by Jizzelbin; 06 Apr 2014 at 07:46 PM.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts