Re:Swift: Google’s Bet on Differentiable Programming
by ggreer on Friday April 10, 2020 @02:00AM
(#22830396)
Are you thinking of The Camel has Two Humps[1]? I don't think it was ever published in a journal and the author later retracted it.[2]
It seems like the conclusions of the study were overstated, but the general idea is correct: Those who apply rules consistently tend to do better at programming than those who don't. This is true even if their initial rules are incorrect, as they simply have to learn the new rules. They don't have to learn the skill of consistently applying rules.
1. http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf
2. http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/staffpages/r_bornat/papers/camel_hu...
Re:Swift: Google’s Bet on Differentiable Programming
by bryanrasmussen on Friday April 10, 2020 @07:00AM
(#22831770)
I guess it is, it certainly seems like, although I had the memory that their main claim was that the ability to handle arbitrary mental models (not completely logical ones) was the differentiator between those who succeeded and not.
And embarrassingly this thing I've gone around believing for the last 14 years isn't so.
>The illusion of understanding is the cause of some of the most frustrating troubleshooting sessions. It's the thing that causes newbies to say, "Fuck this. I'm going to do something else with my life."
About 14 years ago (give or take up to 4 years) I read about a study that was done at a prestigious CS university, where some tests were given entering CS students at the beginning of the course to see who was ok with arbitrary logic and syntax and who was not, IIRC it was 40% of the class who would get hung up on "but why" and "it doesn't make sense" and would end up failing but the ones who were able to cope with the arbitrary nature of things would graduate and the others would end up dropping out, changing studies.
About every couple of months I wish I could find that damn paper / study again.
NOTE: my memories of this study might also have been faded by the years, so...