Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Sean McGrath <email@example.com>, Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:05:57 -0500
I am a little leery of that, Sean, for a couple of
1. It is done. There are people who can do it.
Maybe the rest of us just learn how.
2. One man's abstraction is another man's data.
Trying to teach XML yesterday, I watched that
glazed over oxygen starve look as I presented the
infoSet abstractions and that look resolves
to "JUST SHOW ME CODE!!!". Sure I can do that,
but then I am not teaching XML, I am teaching
ADO. Monkey mind: two moons. Unless we absorb
the abstractions, all we have is "monkey see monkey do".
If we learn the abstractions, then we are able to
move easier among the systems that implement them.
If we can't, then I might as well just teach them
ADO and let them get to coding because that is what
they want to do. Sure, we become a monkey tree
I think the best idea is for one of the grove
experts (ELIOT!) to draft something and
everyone else learn by hacking that. Monkey
see, monkey do.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Sean McGrath [mailto:email@example.com]
At 08:45 01/08/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Sounds like a grove plan to me.
Yes, but we need to jettison the other umpteen layers of abstraction
in the grove stuff that keep this simple idea from