Re: which blend caters to TaL computer programming? . . .
On 3/13/18, rhkramer@gmail.com <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are now a variety of open source attempts at similar functionality,
> this
> page provides some thoughts:
>
> https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-open-source-free-alternative-to-Mathematica
Thank you! Very good reference! I like the idea of a free/OS Python
version of Mathematica. Each time that I looked into comp.programming
I realized I have forgotten when was "the last time I was kissed" and
even the feeling of it ;-)
Knowing well the basics of stuff helps but things keep "evolving" or
being generationally reframed at times with interesting tid bits
On 3/14/18, rhkramer@gmail.com <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the age group of these kids?
They are 5th and 6th graders
> Well, maybe I shouldn't have said age--what is more relevant is their
> education so far--they are very good in math (Math?)--does that mean
> counting
> (to be facetious), addition and subtraction, geometry, trigonometry,
> calculus,
> differential equations, ...?
No calculus of any kind yet, but as I taught them about numerical
sequences they were mesmerized by the fact that the second order
differences of randomly looking numbers being generated by a second
order "formula" was constant. I told them that happened because the
second derivative of a second order polynomial was constant, that this
indeed meant to be a second order polynomial. They took me to task by
asking me what a "derivative" was ...
On 3/14/18, Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 09:53:02PM -0700, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps, but I would get very excited if I found someone was interested
>> by
>> that few lines of text. Such people are the ones who we really need,
>> because they're the ones who are going to be writing the building blocks
>> of
>> tomorrow's software rather than just adding a bit of fluff on top of
>> something they really don't understand.
>>
> I am sure that 30 years ago the same could have been said for those who
> were learning C and C++ without first learning assembler and machine
> language. I mean, at that point applications were just a bit of fluff on
> the machines, which were interesting in their own right.
Yes, but assembler, machine language, and if anything, operating
systems and compilers then didn't mean the same as they do today.
Also, there is some sort of Hegelian/Darwinian reason why things tend
to develop in certain ways.
lbrtchx
Reply to: