Top down Python

[Ben Finney]

John Allsup <pydev at allsup.co> writes:

> Hi,

(John, please don't top-post. Instead, retain only the quoted material
you're responding to, and interleave your responses after the points
like a conversation.

See <URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style>.)

> I'm trying to figure out where 'simpler' stops and 'too simplistic'
> begins.  That's what I call 'absolute simplicity'.

That is a rather misleading use of “absolute”, since it is quite
subjective and, since it's a point with further simplicity beyond, must
by definition not be absolute simplicity.

But again, I'll take this as a preference that you're looking for
efficiency.

> It is a necessity in some areas of learning where even a jot of
> inefficiency can be costly (consider a superconducting magnet just
> below the critical frequency with massive amps going through, and then
> it heats slightly, for a picture of how this 'blow up' happens in the
> real world).

I have no idea what that analogy would mean for someone learning to
program. Are you going to blow up? What is it you're trying to tell us?

> This is an exercise in trying to 'touch the wall'. When the
> possibilities are not infinite, merely an unimaginably large finite
> number, eventually a discrete 'wall' must exists and, thus, ought to
> be findable.

Can you say more concretely what it is you're trying to learn, and where
the teaching resources are not providing what you expect? What is it you
expect?

-- 
 \      “As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely |
  `\       upon authority, there is no end to our troubles.” —Bertrand |
_o__)                                Russell, _Unpopular Essays_, 1950 |
Ben Finney