Comments on: On symbology and materialism

By: Matt Hinze

Matt Hinze — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:51:35 +0000

In related news, it’s easier to teach with examples, and easier to learn by doing.

What I think you are saying is this: “From one intellectual materialist to another, there’s a lot to be said for pure teaching skills. In other words, don’t discount the ability of a good teacher to convey a difficult concept regardless of symbology.”

A good teacher has internalized what you (and Scott) are talking about.

By: bogardj

bogardj — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:28:30 +0000

@Scott

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

By: Scott Bellware

Scott Bellware — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:23:17 +0000

Jimmy,

In fact, you’re agreeing with me unconditionally. There’s no differentiation in your qualification of my point and my point itself. You’ve expanded the scope beyond the intended scope of my article, and the territory you’ve expanded into is in perfect agreement with my position.

Kyle,

Yes, we should pursue simpler names where possible, and it’s almost always possible.

By: Kyle Szklenski

Kyle Szklenski — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:28:17 +0000

Well, I think you actually did. It had just confused me for a moment, because I thought you were completely agreeing with Scott (just assumed, I guess). Good post anyway.

By: bogardj

bogardj — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:24:12 +0000

I’m agreeing, with a “but”. Symbols or names are not important when teaching and get in the way.

But am I supposed to stop using names because it’s harder to teach? No, because names create a shared language, making possible to communicate between peers. I tried to create a sharp difference between communicating between teacher/learner and practitioner/practitioner.

By: Kyle Szklenski

Kyle Szklenski — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:02:04 +0000

Okay, I went back and reread both articles (your’s and Scott’s), and I think you’re directly contradicting him. Symbology, in Scott’s sense, seems to refer to the naming of an item. He says, “In these moments, the mainstream learner often dismisses many brilliantly-simple and game-changing ideas because they’re wrapped up in intimidating symbology, like ‘Liskov Substitution Principle’, ‘Cyclomatic Complexity’, or ‘Inversion of Control’.” He is basically directly saying that the name of the concept is important, but less so much than the concept itself, and so we should choose simpler, more descriptive names to convey the same concepts that we have.

I’m finding that I agree with Scott on this the more I read his article. I agree with you that we need to stop swamping people with acronyms, definitions, and obtuse names of concepts, but I’m still confused about your last line: Are you disagreeing with Scott, agreeing with Scott with a “but”, or completely agreeing with Scott, with your post?

By: Kyle Szklenski

Kyle Szklenski — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:50:33 +0000

And yet, a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. . .unless we called it a stench blossom.

In any case, while I largely agree with your point (names are important, and uniformity of the application of names to concepts is even more important), I disagree that we should not favor the teaching of concepts over names. Or, rather, I’m not sure why you claim we should, “Not abandon the names in favor of teaching the concepts.” I’m of the opinion that first and foremost, a person should know the concept, and then if it has or needs a name, they can apply the name to it. It’s a bit of a chicken and an egg problem. The reason I think that the concepts are more important than the names, and therefore we should not forget the names but rather teach the concepts first, is that even if a concept does not have a specific name, we can talk to people about it and they understand what we’re talking about – that’s kinda the definition of concept.

Did I miss something more fundamental about your post? It seems like I may have confused something, but it’s not at all obvious to me.