So you disregard Howard Gardner and the 8 multiple intelligences? The fact of life is that everyone thinks differently, there are chemical balences that bring about our emotion differently, and the human mind is so complex that even the smallest things can be different, we are shaped by our experiences and how we choose to respond to them. The way we memorize is different (some are long term, some are short term, some people read to memorize, some people write, some people listen to tapes, some people have to do it themselves). The individual is one of the most complex things in existance (which is why I think it's a shame that so many people are afraid to go against the flow, my senior project last year was about the dangers of conformity).
There are people who are probably accumativly smarter because they excel in multiple intelligences, however that is not to say that even a mentally handicap person isn't capable of having a hidden intelligence in something we wouldn't even comprehend. Rainman anyone? The truth is we can't measure intelligence, it is impossible, the only thing we can do is use tests and a poor grading system in a futile attempt to guess at how smart a person actually is.
If you don't agree with me about how corrupt and flawed the school system is I suggest looking up John Taylor Gatto.
I'm supposedly borderline A.D.D, which is not a way of saying that I'm stupid, it's a way of saying that I don't fit into the same box that everyone else does. When I was in second grade my teachers and my principal sat down with my parents because they thought that they "aren't doing him any favors by letting him be so creative", see I would make 3 dimesional objects from the one dimensional drawings in art class, or some other concept that was not sanctioned against by the teacher. It is my personal opinion that many autistic and A.D.D/A.D.H.D people are those of us who may be brilliant in certain areas, but if we are surpressed by those around us, our gifts will be diminished. I wonder how many great thinkers, Leonardo Da Vinci, Thomas Edison, Plato, among a myriad of people would never have been discovered if people back then believed everyone worked the same way. Then again, perhaps they just bucked the system of their time, and rose above it.
There are those among us who are creativly gifted. This is my greatest natural strength. For some, it is their physical intelligence, their ability to understand their body, the way it moves, and how it interacts with their environment. To check out how Howard Gardner broke down the intelligences, I found this on the internet, http://www.gigglepotz.com/mi8.htm
The greatest of all of us may be the individual who retains his personal identity, but exists within a society as a whole, and who adds to that society. Not the individual who is just like another individual who collectivly makes up the society.
The point of all of this, is to state blatantly why we do think differently, and why learning differently, is alright too.
Programmers are naturally bad at explaining things, they're logical creatures for the most part who aren't apt at linguistical skills. Ah, and here we come to the root of how poorly you understand programming... logic is key to explaining something well, and programming is a linguistic skill. Programming is nothing more than explaining to the computer, in precise detail, exactly what you want for it to do, in a way that makes sense to the computer. As long as you're thinking of it as a different chore from explaining to a person step-by-step how to do something in a way tht makes sense to that person... you will pretty well suck ass as a programmer. You can learn, but not well. It's like trying to write music without "getting" the music. You can do it simply by learning what notes are supposed to sound good in what arrangement and figuring out kind of by rote how to arrange them... but it won't be good and it won't be easy. | |
I'm so glad you pounced on that. If you read more than that excerpt you'd understand that I made an exception for those of us who write and program...Myself, I'm heavier on the writing side than the programming side. You wouldn't know it to read these hastily written posts, but if you were to look at the plays, poems, sonnets, short stories, debates, and even the novel I've been writing, you would understand that I am brilliant writer. I enjoy science fiction the most, as it allows me to be the most flexible in my writing, and my creativity. I do not denounce all programmers from being fluid linguists, I'm generallizing that they are ussually bad at explaining things. They understand the details and the logic, but transposing that logic from themselves to another human being, is often very difficult.
| |
As long as you're thinking of it as a different chore from explaining to a person step-by-step how to do something in a way tht makes sense to that person... you will pretty well suck ass as a programmer. You can learn, but not well. *nods* Programmers don't tend to suck at describing things. Rather, people do in general. In any given occupation, whether programming, engineering, or medicine, tutelage is a talent primarily and a skill secondarily. Some people are superb at explaining things in layman's terms, while others are absolutely incapable of doing it. Myself, for instance... I'm not that great at lowering my vocabulary to a layman's level. I can explain something and explain it well, but the words I use often (subconsciously) assume that the other person knows a thing or two about what I'm saying. It often takes a few hours of conversation and explaining before I fully read the other person's "level", and then I can match their questions with good and understandable answers. Problem is, I don't tend to have a few hours to devote to random people. =P But my former CS teacher was excellent at explaining things in layman's terms, relying on simple analogies (bits, for instance, he explained as apples inside little boxes with cardboard subdivisions, and there would either be an apple in a given spot or not...), and he was a good programmer to boot. He could probably even teach someone how to program a VCR. =P It's like trying to write music without "getting" the music. You can do it simply by learning what notes are supposed to sound good in what arrangement and figuring out kind of by rote how to arrange them... but it won't be good and it won't be easy. Yup. I get people telling me that my songs don't sound half bad*, and I don't have even so much as a lick of musical education. If it was the opposite -- I had no sense of talent but studied in college for four years in musical arts -- my music would lack any individuality and simply fall flat. It'd be like modern pop music. * They don't sound good either, since I don't know much about variation and choruses... but they don't sound half bad. I try my best to do what sounds good, conveys a mood, and has little or no discordance. | |
I enjoy classical and punk/emo/screamo/ but mostly hardcore music. O, and my favorite band of all time is a recently retired ska band known as FIF, or Five Iron Frenzy. How screwed up is that?
I love Bethoven's Ode to Joy, yet love the bands "Demon Hunter", "Chevelle", "Blindside", "Zao", "Underoath" and the ilk. I like discordance. It lets me blow off steam. But I still appreciate a melody, as it lets me relax. | |
Wait up, you're trying to get me to believe that ripping somone else's creation is the best way to lean, because everyone learns differently, and obviously, ripping is different than the usual proper route? You're trying to blame your way of learning on A.D.D.? What?
Dude, seriously. Read what you're typing, then re-read it. After then, proofread it and preview it. Read it again, then one more time, just to be sure you know what you're saying, because, obviously, you have no clue what you're typing. Ripping is a lazy and quick shortcut to an end result. The problem is, you rarely learn anything in the process, except how to copy and paste. The end result is nothing like you'd imagined, because you crippled yourself by using a set code base that may not even be able to accomplish what you wanted. Do not listen to Rockinawsome. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and may never be able to see the flaw in his reasoning. If you take his advice and find yourself lost, good luck, because there will be about 3 people who'll be willing to help you, and they're not much better off than yourself. Ripping someone's game will not teach you to program games. Period. ~X | |
Xooxer wrote:
Wait up, you're trying to get me to believe that ripping somone else's creation is the best way to lean, because everyone learns differently, and obviously, ripping is different than the usual proper route? You're trying to blame your way of learning on A.D.D.? What? I totally agree, ripping a game will get you nowhere. Although its ok to read through someone elses code just to see if you can understand parts of it. But its still best to start from scratch. | |
I'm not saying to just rip code and keep it, I'm saying if a publicly available source of code such as a demo or whatever is released than it is okay to work off of that code until you understand it, then go back write your own version of the code.
What the heck is so darn evil about that???? You're not even keeping the code, you're using your own, the only thing you might (because I'm not saying you have to) be doing is taking code, modifying it, then remaking it. *Edit - Do not listen to Xooxer as his opinion is invalid. See, that's the same type of statement you're making in the previous post. Fair? Hardly. | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
I'm not saying to just rip code and keep it, I'm saying if a publicly available source of code such as a demo or whatever is released than it is okay to work off of that code until you understand it, then go back write your own version of the code. The main flaw here is that you have to know DM in order to do this. Looking at someone's source code isn't going to tell you what var means, the differences between a proc and a verb, the pitfalls of usr, what the heck a mob can and cannot do, how areas interact with turfs, what a datum is or any of the basics you'd have to know in order to even read the code. You have to have knowledge of the language and basic programming, and ripping isn't going to teach you this. Even if you do know the basics, you're only going to see one possible way out of hundreds, and it's more than likely not the best way. It most certainly won't be the most appropriate for your needs, because your needs aren't the same as the needs the original programer had. The fundamental skill all programers share is the ability to solve a problem in the most appropriate fashion using the tools of the particular languages being utilized. You're telling people that they can learn to do this by looking at someone else's answers without even knowing what the problems were, or what steps they took to solve them, why they solved it this way, or whether or not other solutions exist. You're telling people that the best way to learn to cook is to pick apart what others have cooked. You're not even keeping the code, you're using your own, the only thing you might (because I'm not saying you have to) be doing is taking code, modifying it, then remaking it. But people don't do that. They take code, change some icons, the name of the project, and call it their own. You're telling people that do this that they are justified in the name of learning. Don't you see the harm in that? Even if someone does take your advice seriously, and only rips to learn, they'll learn little compared to another person that took the proper routes. If given the same amount of time, the person who learned by ripping will never be able to solve a new problem on their own with the same level of skill as the other who learned properly. What's worse, if they ever decide to learn the proper way, they'll have to unlearn what they thought they knew, which is often harder than learning the right way the first time. *Edit - Do not listen to Xooxer as his opinion is invalid. Sure, but my statement is true. ~X | |
Xooxer wrote:
Rockinawsome wrote:Xooxer: The main flaw here is that you have to know DM in order to do this. Looking at someone's source code isn't going to tell you what var means, the differences between a proc and a verb, the pitfalls of usr, what the heck a mob can and cannot do, how areas interact with turfs, what a datum is or any of the basics you'd have to know in order to even read the code. You have to have knowledge of the language and basic programming, and ripping isn't going to teach you this. Actually, looking at code and what the definition is, then applying it is the only way you're going to learn it. Nobody could program (for the first time) from just reading the reference. And you do have to have a basic knowledge of how it works. That's a given. Even if you do know the basics, you're only going to see one possible way out of hundreds, and it's more than likely not the best way. It most certainly won't be the most appropriate for your needs, because your needs aren't the same as the needs the original programer had. Ofcourse not, which is why I said to go back and rewrite what you've done if you're serious about programming. The fundamental skill all programers share is the ability to solve a problem in the most appropriate fashion using the tools of the particular languages being utilized. You're telling people that they can learn to do this by looking at someone else's answers without even knowing what the problems were, or what steps they took to solve them, why they solved it this way, or whether or not other solutions exist. You're telling people that the best way to learn to cook is to pick apart what others have cooked. Me: You're not even keeping the code, you're using your own, the only thing you might (because I'm not saying you have to) be doing is taking code, modifying it, then remaking it. Xooxer: But people don't do that. They take code, change some icons, the name of the project, and call it their own. You're telling people that do this that they are justified in the name of learning. Don't you see the harm in that? Even if someone does take your advice seriously, and only rips to learn, they'll learn little compared to another person that took the proper routes. If given the same amount of time, the person who learned by ripping will never be able to solve a new problem on their own with the same level of skill as the other who learned properly. What's worse, if they ever decide to learn the proper way, they'll have to unlearn what they thought they knew, which is often harder than learning the right way the first time. You underestimate people. I learned a great deal that way, and I didn't steal the code. I'm giving people the benifit of the doubt. You can learn the proper way and do what I'm saying you can do. Heck, I did. *Edit - Do not listen to Xooxer as his opinion is invalid. According to you. Sure, but my statement is true. Opinion and nothing more. ~X | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
Actually, looking at code and what the definition is, then applying it is the only way you're going to learn it. This is not what you've been saying, though. Yet further evidence that you don't really know what you're saying. It's actually close to what I've been saying. Glad to see you're faltering in your position as it helps to solidify my own. Nobody could program (for the first time) from just reading the reference. Do you have proof of this? The reference is not the only source of learning available to you. Actually, it's probably the last step you'd employ. A good start is the DM Guide, then some tutorials like the ZBT along with the reference. Articles on BYONDscape and digitalBYOND are a great sources too, not to mention all the stuff you can find on the Bwicki. And you do have to have a basic knowledge of how it works. That's a given. Really? How so? Are we all born with the natural ability to decipher DM code? If so, I think I was passed up when they were handing that skill out. Explain this. Even if you do know the basics, you're only going to see one possible way out of hundreds, and it's more than likely not the best way. But how will they know what to change if that's the only source of learning they have? It's like giving a child a completed jigsaw puzzle, and telling them to make it themselves, but better. You underestimate people. I learned a great deal that way, and I didn't steal the code. I'm giving people the benifit of the doubt. You can learn the proper way and do what I'm saying you can do. Heck, I did. You say you didn't steal the code, but you could say just about anything here and we'd have no way of verifying if that's true. So, what have you learned? I don't see any games on the hub being played that you've made. You have a clone of Breakout and some RPG that's not playable. Neither of those are evident of any skill, so, what have you really learned? According to you. Sure, but my statement is true. Opinion and nothing more. Opinions are never invalid, they are also never true. That's why they are opinions, "I think..." or "I believe...". They are not facts that can be proven or disproven. They aren't right or wrong, my statement was. I stated that you do not know what you are talking about, and I am correct. You said my opinion (which never even existsed) was invalid, which is not true. ~X | |
I didn't ever expect to try and learn DM. I went to my friends house one day and he was playing around with BYOND. I guess you could say I started with LilTrunks RPG demo thing, because thats what he was using. Eventually my friend made DBZ: SAW (ripped version of NN but CTF style). I helped some
It's funny, because even now I can remember when I had no idea how to do the .loc = locate. I read through the Blue Book every now and then, but I never seemed to learn anything from it. I mostly learned from other peoples source codes by messing around with it. | |
Xooxer wrote:
I then created a small key/lock mechanism and trigger. This required some time to figure out. Basically, I created a small stone gem. I had to have a way of picking it up, so I created a get() verb for it. Then there was a black stone the gem fit into. You had to place the gem in the stone, which did a few things. This required another verb, Use. I had some trouble getting it so you could only use the gem on the stone if you were right next to it, but soon I had it working like I wanted. Then I had to have something happen when the gem was fit into the stone. I used the key/lock mechanism the gem and stone made as a switch to activate a door opening. It took some time to get it all connected and working, but after it was, I had progressed quite a bit in DM programming. I demand that you start on a Learning Activities Bwicki page at once! =P | |
Screw it. I've replied so many times to this crap. It's miscommunication now. You'll never get your head around this idea because you don't want to. You want original code? I can give you that. But to what end? You're arrogant. Period. I never claimed to be some extraordianary programmer, hell I just do it for the fun of it. There are just different reasons for programming in byond, and people learn differently. If you can't grasp it...screw it.
| |
Kholint wrote:
People learn differently, yes, but taking someone else's code and changing it is not learning. Actually, I did that in my beginning with DM. I used Deadron's "A Step BYOND" and Dan's "HomeLib" to see working code in action and explore how my little tweaks affected the whole. Even in other programming languages, I've always explored other people's source code to learn how they do things and adapt it to my personal style. A tutorial teaches you basics and is a good starting point, but the advanced concepts are deep within more complex projects. The important thing when you learn from other people's source code is that you actually study it until you understand it, then you apply your understanding to innovate new systems and ideas instead of just regurgitating other people's source code. That is the difference between learning from source code and just lazily ripping. I never tried to pass off a modification of someone's code as my own work and always give credit when I use someone else's snippets or libraries. I see nothing wrong with learning that way. I believe anyone familiar with me will agree that I have a firm grasp of DM programming. | |
Everyone that says to read a tutorial to learn the language assumes that you'll understand the tutorial completely. but, that is not true, so their argument falls apart from there. looking at working source code can be easier for some people. change some things, see what happens. you can still learn things by doing that, and some people might prefer that to the tutorials. it seems that the tutorials are written by people that understand the language, so the tutorial always makes sense to them, but it might not make sense to newbies. newbies have very different backgrounds in programming, so some might be able to just read the whole reference and know the language, while others might never understand the tutorials no matter how many times they read them.
| |
Well, when I learned DM, whenever I learned a new concept, I would follow along with some sort of tutorial, part of the DM guide, or a DM Ref entry, trying to make a demo of my own on the concept which i was attempting to learn. Alot of times, I learned by trying alot better than by reading. Looking at published demos helped too; that's the purpose of demos: to teach one how to do something. Their purpose, as some developers (unfortunately) never realize, is NOT to rip the demo and put it in your own code, because as we all know, code doesn't always fit every situation perfectly.
Ripped code, however, is just bad all the way through. The thing you aren't realizing here is that most ripped code is actually pretty crappy. And if you learn from crappy code, then you'll probably end up a crappy coder. Looking at published pieces of work which were created in order to teach, like "A Step BYOND", for example, is very helpful to people who learn in certain ways. Rips, however, are generally bad coding, and usually uncommented anyway. Therefore, since the ripped coding is crappy and/or sparsely commented, learning good programming skills from a rip is nearly impossible. | |
Rockinawsome wrote:
Screw it. I've replied so many times to this crap. It's miscommunication now. You'll never get your head around this idea because you don't want to. You want original code? I can give you that. But to what end? You're arrogant. Period. I never claimed to be some extraordianary programmer, hell I just do it for the fun of it. There are just different reasons for programming in byond, and people learn differently. If you can't grasp it...screw it. Heh. The difference between the BYOND forums and the Game Maker forums (http://forums.gamemaker.nl/) is astounding. People can get caught up in everyone having to do something "the right way". The thing is, the right way can be different for everyone. Everybody is different, and is better at learning in different ways. What matters is that they do learn and have fun doing it! :) | |
People learn differently, yes, but taking someone else's code and changing it is not learning.
Read a tutorial, then start from scratch.
If you want to learn any differently, don't try programming in the first place.
Everyone knows that the "People learn differently" phrase is just a nice way of saying "Some people will become plumbers due to their intelligence potential", which is just a nice way of saying "You're an idiot".