On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:59:05 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:50:37 +0200
> Irrwahn <irrwahn@???> wrote:
>
>> We could play this game day in, day out for months or even
>> years, without having you grasp the basics necessary to
>> fully understand the implications of even moderately
>> sophisticated C programs.
>
> This discussion is getting theoretical, so allow me to discuss my
> theories...
>
> I think Edward's being sucked into a vortex of basics at lightning
> speed, and within a couple weeks will know as much about the basics
> necessary for Felker PID1 as you do (which would be twice what I know,
> I found your explanation really hit the spot). Different people learn
> differently: Perhaps Edward learns much faster from doing than from
> reading or receiving instruction. If he ends up in the same place, we
> have one more knowledgeable person in the group.

At the moment, at least to me, it unfortunately looks like he
refuses to learn _anything_ of what he's being told, up to the
point I am beginning to have doubts he's not simply trolling.
Or maybe he has just killfiled me.

>> It'd be like teaching integral
>> calculus to someone not having mastered multiplication yet:
>> frustrating for both student and teacher.
>
> I'd use a different analogy, but sometimes, for some people, it's better
> to learn the calculus first.

Alas, you *cannot* learn, let alone understand, calculus while
knowing zilch about multiplication. Grasping the latter is a
necessary precondition for understanding the former.

>> There is no substitute for learning things from the bottom
>> up. There is no silver bullet! You *have* to go through the
>> basics to even have a chance of understanding more advanced
>> concepts.
>
> Yes, but in what order? It's very possible and practical to learn C in
> a need-to-know order, rather than studying all the system calls just to
> program a PDF watermarker.

No, it's not practical at all, as you will never understand how
things are connected at their base. And nobody said anything
about studying all the system calls, that would be braindead.
I was talking about the equivalent of learning to walk before
learning to run. So, the natural order, to answer your question.

> A real beauty of this thread started by Edward is it motivated you to
> give a very succinct explanation of the Felker PID1. Don't think for a
> minute that Edward was the only one who learned from your explanation:
> It reinforced my knowledge too, and I doubt I'm the only one.

Well, I wouldn't have posted it to a public list if I hadn't
foreseen a slight chance of it being useful to at least someone.
;-)

[...]
> It's called Curiosity Driven Learning, and even though it can seem
> crazy to people having all the foundational knowledge, it's probably
> the quickest way to acquire knowledge, and soon enough the foundational
> knowledge is acquired.

In theory, nothing wrong with it. However, it requires you to
actually acknowledge the fact there is such a thing as basic
knowledge, and that it's good to have it. And as long as you
don't actively hold yourself back from acquiring it!

But still, you never know where exactly the gaps in your
knowledge might pop up, and you constantly live in danger of
unexpectedly finding yourself between platform and train, so
to speak.

> This is a really fun discussion. You don't hear anything like it over
> on Debian-User.

It's a shame that I am not in the least surprised.

Regards
Urban