Re: transpiling to low level C

On 22.12.2024 04:17, James Kuyper wrote:

On 12/21/24 20:04, Michael S wrote:
...

There is more than one school of teaching. One school believes that
students learn from explanations and exercises. Other school believes
that students learn best when provided with bare basics and then asked
to figure out the rest by themselves.

In context of this newsgroup where my impression is that there's a lot
of years long IT/CS experienced and quite old people discussing topics
the explanatory "model" of "schools of teaching" is anyway completely
inappropriate; there's not "one _teacher_ [who knows almost all]" and
"all the rest are [ignorant] _pupils_" that need to be "guided" (in
one way or the other). Not saying anything substantial on a topic can
certainly be perceived as some rhetorical move but it's surely not any
sort of teaching-didactics [of whatever "school of teaching"]).

 
I personally believe that Tim generally thinks there's a justification
for what he says, and that we'd be better off figuring it out ourselves.

(My impression is that he often says something on a topic where he has
no deeper knowledge, but is pretending to know by not saying anything
substantial.)

I also know, from the rare occasions when he's been convinced to provide
his justification, that I often don't consider his justification valid.
However, he says things that seem to be unjustified so often, I can't
help wondering if he doesn't occasionally say things he realizes are
unjustified (either at the time, or as the result of subsequent
discussion), and withholds his justifications in order to hide the fact
that he knows he was wrong. Probably not, but I keep wondering.

(This matches with my observations and I drew a similar conclusion.)

Janis