Are you saying that you have a friend who attends this program at Oxford and they don’t do any actual programming? I suspect I’m misunderstanding because that sounds really unlikely.
Oxford’s course is unusually pure. My freinds reading it don’t actually use, you know, computers. They just write their algorithms down on paper.
“Pure” one word you could use for that teaching strategy. Just what it is a ‘pure’ representation of is up for debate. “Pure backwards self-congratulatory tripe” would be the cynical description.
I think they’re trying to train a Scott Aaronson, not a John Carmack. A Scott Aaronson really does work by not actually using a computer much for anything other than typesetting LaTeX.
And that sounds like a brilliant idea. Most of the problems I have with having being forced to write algorithms on paper at times disappear right there. It’s even worse than forcing people to write sentences on paper, given the need for correctness in the details.
You’re being awfully cynical lately, and I don’t like it.
I have never respected cheap ‘purity’ signalling at the expense of practical considerations. Not when I was learning at university, not now. I will always consider the obligation to use paper rather than modern technology to be a bad thing, not an indicator of elite quality.
Would you like an internet hug?
No, you are making me uncomfortable. Please don’t ask again.
Oxford’s course is unusually pure. My freinds reading it don’t actually use, you know, computers. They just write their algorithms down on paper.
Are you saying that you have a friend who attends this program at Oxford and they don’t do any actual programming? I suspect I’m misunderstanding because that sounds really unlikely.
I think they did at one point—but yes, when I asked them about it, they basically hadn’t entered code into a terminal for an entire semester.
“Pure” one word you could use for that teaching strategy. Just what it is a ‘pure’ representation of is up for debate. “Pure backwards self-congratulatory tripe” would be the cynical description.
I think they’re trying to train a Scott Aaronson, not a John Carmack. A Scott Aaronson really does work by not actually using a computer much for anything other than typesetting LaTeX.
And that sounds like a brilliant idea. Most of the problems I have with having being forced to write algorithms on paper at times disappear right there. It’s even worse than forcing people to write sentences on paper, given the need for correctness in the details.
Oh, they don’t have to write on paper. I just don’t know any maths students who do. Handwriting maths is easier than typesetting it.
(At least it is for people who are bad at typesetting.)
Wolfram-style automatic formatting buttons ftw.
Maybe try with a bit less sarcasm? I’m having genuine trouble parsing what you are objecting to, exactly.
There isn’t any sarcasm in the grandparent.
You’re being awfully cynical lately, and I don’t like it.
Would you like an internet hug?
I have never respected cheap ‘purity’ signalling at the expense of practical considerations. Not when I was learning at university, not now. I will always consider the obligation to use paper rather than modern technology to be a bad thing, not an indicator of elite quality.
No, you are making me uncomfortable. Please don’t ask again.
It’s not the teaching strategy, it’s the subject matter. See for instance pure maths.