Subject: Re: (no subject)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/03/13
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Kent M Pitman <>
| Would I have learned math better if someone had started with a full
| theory of complexes, or with the right terms but just lots of missing
| elements conspicuously waiting for years to be filled in?

  Kent, I think you're overreacting.  my issue is only with having a
  one-shot high-level overview of something finite and fully knowable that
  is _contradicted_ by fact, not about how successive approximations to a
  complete understanding of something would work, especially not as used in
  a situation where the teacher can control the real or apparent confusions
  when moving from one approximation to the next.

  I'm concerned that you appear to think that explaining a simple principle
  in the design of Common Lisp (no statement/expression dichotomy) cannot
  be done simply _and_ correctly, however.  yet I'm not sure that's really
  what you wanted to say.

  when I study something, I want to know what motivated those who figured
  it out, not only whatever somebody thinks would motivate me to use it.
  if I understand the former, I can perhaps find a better way, combining
  what I know from other motivations, and do something fun and cool.  if I
  only learn the latter, the best I can hope for is using existing tools,
  and how fun is that?