> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...scientists.html > > It will be interesting to see how this pans out. > > Imparting knowledge is one thing, but is it enough ? > > Take for example computer programming. To be a passable programmer, you need at the > very least a very good knowledge of the languages you are using and the environment > you are working in, decent problem solving skills, and a very good memory to keep > track of the flow of data and logic through the code. > > The tech talked about above might be able to give you an excellent knowledge of the > language syntax and environment, but what about the rest of the skills ? > > Tenacity and problem solving are two essential skills for all programmers (well for > all programmers who want to excel at their art) - never give up, keep trying, the > ability to look at things from different angles, explore alternate solutions, etc. > > Could a knowledge transfer machine teach you these things ? Really, we are talking > the difference between knowledge and skills ... > > A lot of this comes down to work ethic and passion. If you don't particularly like > programming or computers, treat your work as "another day, another dollar", then > you'll never be a good programmer. These are what Cringley (Accidental Empires) > called "lumpen programmers". As Cringley said, these "programmers" should go get a > job maintaining COBOL code at a large insurance company, because they'll be useless > at anything else. > > On the other hand, if you have real passion for computers, love programming, eat > sleep and breath computers, love learning new stuff, love discovering new solutions > or new ways to solve problems, love exploring, love the thrill of bending a machine > to your will, love messing around in debuggers and beneath the layers of OS's, > networks, etc, then you'll likely make an excellent programmer - a "gun". And, one > excellent programmer is worth 100's of lumpens. > > So, if a machine is going to teach you to be a computer programmer, could it teach > you to be an "excellent programmer" (with all the required skills, not just knowledge > of the syntax and commands) ? Or are people going to take what the machine gives them > as a basis - they might be "trainee programmers" - and then need to develop their > problem solving, etc skills through countless 1,000's of hours of hard work ? Could > such a machine turn someone who dislikes programming, or a "lumpen", into a "gun" > programmer ? > > It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Are you trying to tell us you haven't watched NBC's "Chuck?"
|