*blink* That's neat.

[It's neelk!]

Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net> wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> But if certain HCI people produce research that shows 'and' and
>> 'or' are about the worst names for these operators, then I'd indeed
>> question that research and those particular HCI people. There isn't
>> actually such research, is there, though, I assume?
>
> Well, speaking anecdotally, I remember years ago when I was learning
> to program and I had trouble with those operators. I admit that I
> can't remember exactly what the trouble was now, but for some reason
> I often got them reversed.

Obviously, the problem is that you must have been thinking of the
isomorphism between the booleans and the Galois field of order 2, and
thus using unfamiliar operators like "xor" and "and" in the place of
"+" and "*" was what confused you. Fortunately, this is easily
remedied.

I also asked grabbed the handiest four-year old to find out if integer
division was confusing to people unfamiliar with computers, and her
response was "Siwwy Gwido! Integer if a ring, not a field!" She then
demanded a plush Pikachu doll, and held her breath until I gave in.  I
didn't feel bad, though, because no price is too high for science.


Neel