Re: transpiling to low level C

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

I have been wanting to reply to this posting but it has taken
time for my thoughts to sort themselves out.  If anyone wants not
to be bothered with responses to old postings they should feel
free to skip this posting.  (Some white space has been added.)

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 01:39:49 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

On 22.12.2024 01:18, Michael S wrote:
>

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 01:13:07 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

On 21.12.2024 23:20, Michael S wrote:
>

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 21:31:24 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

So your statement asks for some explanation at least.

>
I would guess that Tim worked as CS professor for several
dozens years.  And it shows.

I have taught at the college level (but not as a professor) in
several disciplines.  Computer science was one of them.

What may be more relevant is I have been exposed to a wide range
of teaching styles, so I have a lot of background to draw on.

Ranks and titles are, per se, no guarantee.  I'm not impressed;
I've seen all sorts/qualities of professors.  YMMV.
>
If that is true (that he was one) I'm wondering why we observe
so often that he posts statements here and doesn't care to
explain it.  At least the many _good_ professors I met in my
life typically were keen to explain their theses, statements,
or knowledge (instead of dragging that out of him).

>
It seems, you didn't understand me.  (Ogh, it is contagious ;-)

>
I'm sorry, no. - I certainly took it literally - as I do (at
first) with most people and their statements (until I get to
know better).
>
If it was meant sarcastically or anything, I'd appreciate a
smiley or something like that.  (It certainly wasn't obvious to
me.)
>
If it was meant serious and I completely missed the point - which
may also happen occasionally - I'd appreciate a pointer.

>
Part of the answer is in your previous response.  You wrote:
"many _good_ professors I met in my life typically were keen to
explain their theses, statements, or knowledge (instead of
dragging that out of him)".  You essentially admitted that not all
good professors behave like that.
>
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.  There is
also the third school that believes that student don't really
learn anything before they try to explain it to somebody else.
>
You make an impression of one that received basics of CS.
Probably, 40 or so years ago, but still you have to know basic
facts.  Unlike me, for example.
>
So, Tim expects that you will be able to utilizes his hints.  And
that it would lead to much better understanding on your part then
if he feeds you by teaspoon.

Just a general comment in response to the statements above.  I
don't (usually) think of posting in a newsgroup as teaching, but
rather as a kind of public oration to a small, nebulously defined
audience.  It may be that I am primarily addressing one person,
but that is done with the understanding that it is a (semi-)public
comment and other people may be, or even often are, listening in.

That is one part.  Another part is that he is annoyed by your
tone.

In most cases my postings are motivated by one, or sometimes
both, of two motivations:

  wanting to be helpful
  a desire for correctness

Every so often I see a post where what is being sought is not
necessarily an answer but a way of understanding a question so
that they may arrive at an answer.  I enjoy postings where I
present a perspective for how to arrive at an answer rather than
just offering a statement of what the answer is (which may be
either a statement of fact, a statement of opinion, or a
statement of belief).  What I really like is the sense that my
comments have been found helpful, which empirically happens about
once a month.  These are the best.

More often it happens that a posting has a statement that looks
wrong, either incomplete or partially inaccurate or just plain
false, and where because of my background I want to offer a
correction.  (No doubt a large part of my reaction comes from my
training in mathematics.)  My usual practice in such cases is
first to research the question to make sure my impression of
wrongness is correct (and when I skip this step all too often it
turns out badly).  In cases where the research confirms my early
impression, typically I will post a response with the hope of
clarifying the misstep.  Sometimes this goes well, other times
not so much, for a variety of reasons.  I don't enjoy getting
dragged into newsgroup quicksand, and try to avoid it as much as
possible.  For reasons beyond my understanding, it appears that
some participants actually want to jump into the quicksand, and
as a result the conversation goes off the rails.  I think it
frustrates some people that I don't want to continue taking part
in a conversation that seems to me to be no longer relevant to
what I was trying to say.  I don't want what I do (or don't do)
to cause frustration for people;  at the same time I don't think
I should be obligated to put other peoples desires ahead of my
own needs.  I'm sorry if that view causes some people to be
unhappy, but I don't see any reasonable way of changing it.

Naturally there are other kinds of postings and conversations
that I take part in.  The discussion above isn't meant to be
exhaustive.

Depending on circumstances I give different kinds of responses.
When a topic involves several competing forces typically I would
give a more extensive response, to address the various different
aspects.  When a topic involves a single more linear kind of
reasoning, sometimes it seems better to provide just a key piece
and leave the rest to the readers.  I do this for two reasons.
One is a belief that it's more valuable to learn how to discover
an answer than to be told what the answer is.  The other is a
consideration for the broader potential audience - I don't want
to deprive other readers of the benefits of thinking things
through and working things out for themselves.  Given a choice
between the two paths, this one seems better to me.

There are several kinds of postings that irk me.  One is shallow
thinkers, people who habitually stop after at most one thought.
Another is lazy thinkers, people who it seems clear could answer
a question themselves if only they would apply themselves but for
some reason they don't.  I put in a fair amount of effort looking
for answers to C questions, and it bothers me when someone wants
me to answer a question only because they are too lazy to find it
themselves.  Especially annoying are people who act like I have
some sort of obligation to "prove" something to them rather than
even trying to consider different sides of a question;  not just
laziness, but almost pro-active laziness.  In a related category
are people who are looking not for an answer but an argument.  I
have no interest in arguing or trying to convince someone intent
on arguing a point of view.  I hope everyone can understand my
lack of interest in such exchanges.

On the flip side, I tend to give some slack to those who are
suffering from some fundamental misunderstanding after making a
concerted and earnest effort to figure things out themselves.  I
have run into such situations myself in the past, where often
just a simple comment can clear up everything.  One of my
favorite sayings from Fred Brooks:  Don't make the mistake of
thinking someone is stupid just because they are ignorant.

I hope the foregoing has provided some understanding of my
motivations as to whether, why, and how I give the responses I
do.


(For those to chose to read the posting and made it through to
the end, thank you for your attention.)