You are writing very clever sentences here. So you must have a very capable keyboard while only repeating words that others invented for you. And your clever 3D design (yes, I have read many of your excellent posts) isn’t really yours either, since you didn’t design the technique, the software nor the commands you are using. According to that same reasoning.
Can you see that this is the logical conclusion of the quote of yours?
Are you really claiming that you can not think novel thoughts and ideas when “only following in other’s footsteps” when saying or commanding something (verbally or with text) using regular words and syntax not invented by you?
In my humble opinion you can think novel thoughts and ideas. Like if you have learned how to walk, you can potentially also go anywhere where you can go by foot, including places following paths that noone else have even trodden. Not only walking in other’s footsteps, that is.
Logic is a predefined amount of possibilities. Most of us would agree on that (otherwise it would not be covered in that which is defined as “logical”). That would also mean, acording to your reasoning, that the only novelty which is possible in terms of thoughts and ideas is uttering illogical nonsense.
Hm. Perhaps I shouldn’t posts this, but I’m actually amazed…
Hi @RIL i must excuse, i have a passion for burping up “clever” remarks not only to remind others. i hope you dont take that personal and yes of course i am nothing more or at least not much more than a product of my environment. i dont claim to be clever. this is not about you and not about me. programming is interesting but i dont have much time for it currently, still thinking about it makes me “poetic”.
so you say its not important to think about a “deeper” sense of programming while discussing essences of it? i leave that up to you, but you were the one who wanted to open other’s eyes, now you are trying to close them.
Learn programming. Then we can talk about programming. You have no understanding of the nature of programming and therefore you have not presented any “deeper” sense of programming.
Why I responded to you is so that others who want to learn programming won’t be totally mislead and confused about programming. That’s all, and this is also why this very much not personal (to me), not one bit really.
And I want to say again that I really do apprechiate your posts on 3D modelling, I really do. As long as you don’t mention programming, in any sense or aspect.
Learn programming, then talk about programming (on professional forums).
BTW, I learn a lot from other programmers on this forum. People who knows what they are talking about. Just like when you show your tricks about 3D modelling (I learn from it, when you know what you talk about)). Please take that personally.
i like to talk about programming before i start programming, i think its a natural process and the absolute opposite of misleading. i also appreciate your sober input usually at many occasions, but i dont think that your advises are very helpful now. discussing an abstract different sense is ok but yes its getting personal now or actually has become right at the start, like a soap story but not a good one.
And the advice, from most experienced programmers is - essentially: Start programming, stop taliking ab out it. It’s not meaningful. And you wouldn’t know why, until you learn to program.
But you are right about the fact that programming is a “natural process”. It’s also not a rabbit hole.
In another post I have claimed that fact that my grandmother, who was born in Russia, the part which later became the independent Finland, knew programming more complex than C++ in my opinion. She wrote crochet descriptions, and recipes. That’s programming, although not computer programming.
So yes, programming is a very natural process. But given the “endless” variation possibilities, that doesn’t mean that it excludes novel variants and novel results.
Just don’t make claims about computer programming which simply are not true.
and this is exactly what i am trying to avoid. i dont like to blindly step into others foot paths. hence the “smart” burp about programming above.
just to be sure this one does not lead to misunderstandings, you talked about alice?
a rabbit hole can be something very positive. i dont see it as a dark hole, even though it can be or even become one.
i have seen you talk about that at some other occasion and its a very valuable comparison.
That one. It doesn’t help. It’s just muddying the water for any horse that want’s to drink from the fountain of programming.
Language is a specific set of symbols and rules how to apply those symbols. The symbols convey meaning. In the specific case of programming, those symbols translate to tools or actions.
Those tools may or may not be taylored to a specific use. But noone can ever prevent you from using or combining them differently. You may take longer to drive a nail given only a block of iron and a piece of wood instead of a hammer.
The results will only ever be limited by your imagination. Your language choice will just make reaching your goal harder or easier.
It’s true, you can limit yourself to just copying tutorials. And in fact, that’s not programming. But that has nothing to do with language or its “limited possibilities”.
yes probably, but i am not questioning that and it does not prove the statement to be wrong. it rather “solidifies” it.
i have no goal to reach. that is what i meant, joy does not come from reaching goals only. it may substitute it but may also lead into the other direction.
and before i limit myself to a small box in which i try to swivel around for an entire ∞ i think and evaluate and try to understand if it is really necessary.
to bring it to a point of less abstract context, those languages which are here discussed are pretty old i hardly can believe that somebody is still using them. if you want to become a good programmer then i may pull another quote from you written further above which i found an inspiring questioning,
yes i believe that would make sense, a true programmer will be able to write his own language being able to change it when its needed. otherwise you become a footpath seeker instead of padding onto fresh paths.
Without a goal to reach or thought to transport, thinking about language and specific limitations is moot. You just cannot define the size of your box without knowing your own size or travel distance.
Once you know your intent, you can choose your language. You will probably not be able to efficiently plan the production of a facade with a crochet pattern, but who knows? You can try to write out a complex mathematical formula with only three letter english words. It may be more efficient to use the agreed upon math symbols…
No, an engineer will choose whatever set of tools is best suited for the task. It may help to know how the tool works to better know its limits and uses.
You do not need to know how to build a guitar to be the most skilled and emphatic guitar player and create innovative beautiful music. You will need to modify your guitar or even build something entirely different, if you don’t want the guitar sound. But then again, you will fall back to just another set of tools to build your new instrument and your (immediate) task isn’t playing music any more.
It doesn’t make any sense to talk about woodworking if all you want to do is play a guitar. You don’t need to create a guitar if there is a shitload to choose from and all you want to do is play. It doesn’t even matter that the basic template of guitars is a couple of centuries old.
If someone goes to ask you about the best guitar to use, please don’t try talking him down, because he’s “just following others footsteps”.