Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?)

On 26/03/2025 19:31, James Kuyper wrote:

On 3/26/25 05:00, David Brown wrote:

On 26/03/2025 00:55, James Kuyper wrote:

...

I was born just in time to be taught the New Math in school.

>
These days, of course, kids don't learn about any of this - they just
learn how to ask ChatGPT about it from their iPad.

 I'm currently raising two 9-year olds (yes, they were born when I was 56
- I've been late for almost everything in my life, including my marriage
- I hope that includes my funeral). They use ChromeBooks supplied by the
school district, and as far as I know they've made no use of ChatGPT.
 

Here, schools vary - some have pads of some sort, others have Chromebooks.  IMHO the Chromebooks are a vastly better choice.
Appropriate use of AI is now being taught in schools, but I don't know when they start (my youngest is 17).

The biggest difference between the way they were taught math and the way
I was taught is something called a "number bond". The concept emphasizes
that 6 and 4+2 are the same quantity, so 5 is "bonded" to the
combination of 4 and 2. In other words, the concept is used to
encapsulate the distributive property. They attach as much or more
importance to that fact as I would attach to the fact that 6 and 2*3 are
the same quantity. I have no idea whether this is a good idea, just as
my parents had no idea whether the "New Math" was a good idea.

I don't remember any of my kids being taught that kind of thing.  I vaguely recall the idea of "ten-friends" - so 4 is a "ten-friend" of 6. Getting used to these makes adding up a big quicker.