Fwd: A typing question

[dn]

On 31/10/2022 11.44, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 09:39, dn <PythonList at danceswithmice.info> wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/2022 06.06, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Paulo da Silva <p_d_a_s_i_l_v_a_ns at nonetnoaddress.pt> writes:
>>>> Is there anything to do without loosing my script structure and usual
>>>> practice?
>>>
>>>     to lose (losing): to stop having something
>>>     to loose (loosing): to let or make loose (see next line)
>>>     loose (adj.): not firmly attached/tied/fastened/controlled
>>>     to loosen: similar to "to loose"
>>
>>
>> Hay, your write*!
>>
>> Well done. There's many a native-speaker who doesn't know the
>> distinction, or doesn't care about accuracy.
>>
> 
> I'm curious to what extent sloppy English correlates with sloppy code.
> Do people care about learning proper Python but not about proper
> English, or do they think there's no such thing as proper English just
> because there's no English Steering Council?
> 
> A lot of people seem to treat English the way web browsers treat HTML
> - as long as you can make some sense out of it, it's good enough. Some
> nerds treat English the way the W3C treats HTML - there actually is a
> standard and everything has defined rules. I know which camp I prefer
> to communicate with.


There are two distinctions to make: what is "correct", and how correctly 
we practice!

Various languages do have a 'standards body', eg French and the group 
known as "l'Académie (française)". However, no matter how much they try 
to push-back against the encroachment of words from other languages (eg 
"le weekend"), even they admit that it is a losing battle (see also: 
King Canute).

English is, and has long-been, an "acquisitive language". It takes words 
from other languages, often as attempted-homophones, and makes them 
"English": verandah, foreign, algebra, ... (and seeing I mentioned 
French: "maitre d'" because it makes the restaurant sound 'posh'; 
champagne because you can then charge more for the bubbles, and 
omelet/omelette because I'm feeling hungry...). Indeed yous-Australians 
are also manipulators of the language, eg "tradies" for 
tradesmen/trades-people (see also: "They're a Weird Mob" - in case you 
haven't read that hilarious piece of Aussie Kulcha).

There have been various attempts at standardising English. Indeed for 
our Internet-based training courses and courseware, I went looking for 
an 'international English'. There is no such thing. The closest is more 
to do with accent than text, ie speaking the Queen's/King's English, is 
really a euphemism for a (plummy) Oxford accent (or BBC accent - also 
fading into the past). A good starting-point: 
https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/the-cambridge-encyclopedia-of-the-english-language/2B10AC8766B73D09955C899572C1E7EC#overview 
- a tome compiled by a man living in Wales (go figure!).

The earliest attempts would include Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the 
English Language (which preceded 'your' Lewis Carroll's playing with 
language by about half a century). Around-about one-century after that 
came the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), which is the closest thing to 
an idea of 'standard spelling'. (and at times differs significantly from 
alternate tomes describing American-English).

As for grammar, I must admit deferring (and devolving?) such to style 
manuals, such as The Times of London, Strunk and White, etc. (but 
perhaps only later and lesser: Kernighan and Plauger's similarly named 
"Elements of Programming Style"). In this case, my multi-cultural 
education (or lack of application to my school-work?) has caused me many 
a stumble. Certainly, I've never taught the subject. Perhaps someone is 
better-acquainted with works used by The British Council, et al, in 
their English as a Second Language (and related) courses?


The other side of this topic, that of accuracy and precision, involves 
aspects which were driven into us at school - that is, those of us with 
Optional[grey] hair! These days, teaching good-grammar, spelling, and 
so-on, are deemed unnecessarily restrictive, perhaps even cruel, but 
certainly far too boring (see also: "joined-up" hand-writing). "Drill" 
(aka "deliberate practice") is rarely employed as a teaching/learning 
technique in schools. Cue "amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant" 
(Latin - although quite why, as six-year olds, the teachers ("Masters") 
thought we should be speaking of love escapes me) and "Je suis, tu es, 
il est, ..." (French - which always reminds me of Rodin's sculpture and 
Descartes exclamation)*

I've even (as an adult) had a (school) Department Head reply to such 
criticism with "but you understood me, didn't you?". So, with teachers 
like that, the kids are 'on a hiding to nothing'. The prevailing-theory 
seems to be that 'you'll pick it up as you go-along'. However, empirical 
evidence suggests otherwise. I've even met voracious readers who admit 
that their spelling is at the lousy-end of any metric, busting that myth 
well-and-truly!


Traditionally 'computer people' have been assumed to need a good 
grounding in math[s]. Although, I haven't met anyone recently whose 
computing degree includes delving into Numerical Analysis - which 
explains the two recent threads (here and/or Tutor) asking why 
floating-point numbers are not always accurate/precise. Indeed, it's not 
hard to find ComSc graduates who don't know that 1 + 1 = 10 (binary) nor 
octal, nor hex[adecimal]...
(cue: (timely) joke about not knowing the difference between Halloween 
and Christmas)

There are observations (regret: have failed to lift-out a paper or a 
web.ref, but will keep an eye out...) that a better preparation for 
programming might well be human-language courses. Even the experience of 
grappling with a non-native language, both the learning and the 
execution, are readily transferable to computing. Plus, appreciating the 
subtleties of language (see elsewhere, list ~= stack) prepares one for 
the task of communicating both to human and machine, concurrently!

If not [in the] right, the teacher, mentioned earlier, was correct: I 
did understand him. However, even basic communication theory illustrates 
that his lack of effort in 'transmitting' required extra effort from the 
'receiver'. A computer/compiler will not invest (much) "extra" - despite 
the herculean efforts to improve Traceback explanations in recent Python 
releases. Many thanks to those involved!). In source-code, precision is 
'rewarded'; but lack of precision is quickly and decisively 'punished'.

Doesn't the compiler enforce a discipline upon us? Does that mean that 
accepting such discipline is a (necessary) early step towards the 
profession? Indeed, perhaps the constant mental struggle against an 
implacable machine; which regularly, and almost gleefully, tells us 'you 
are wrong'; is a reason why so many leave the profession - frustrated, 
angry, disappointed, mentally-exhausted, ego-dented, ...
(sadly, not the only (sensible) reason for leaving!)

Also, programming is something of a team-sport. We regularly come-across 
correspondents to this list asking questions without suitable and 
sufficient background information. Being able to ask a question and 
describe a problem is a skill - as much as describing the solution in 
Python. Indeed the famous push-back for such deficit is "Rubber Duck 
Problem Solving", and the phenomenon that the process of organising 
one's thoughts in order to best express them to another, is likely to 
throw-up a/the solution. When that doesn't work, the quality of the 
question and its communication will directly affect the (speed and) 
quality of an answer - as well as the 'cost' of the distraction to the 
'helper'. Our common understanding of the problem domain, is key to 
communication. (and a generator of jargon, or extensions to the language!)


When it comes to CVs/resumés (see what I did there?), I must admit that 
the most egregious of errors in spelling or grammar do ensure that an 
applicant's 'work' is quickly routed to "file 13" (an American-English 
term, many other English-speakers will not have heard previously).

IMHO, I prefer someone who'll *do* the work, over someone who'll make me 
work. YMMV! Surely someone who mis-types and/or misspells, and has to 
'take a second run at it' after Python objects, will take longer to 
complete the same task as someone who is accurate and 'gets it right 
first-time'?

(indeed, would better construction of that sentence read: "Surely 
someone who mis-types and/or misspells, and suffering objections from 
Python, has to 'take a second run at it', will take longer...")

Alternately, I'm just an old f...?


* that said, the languages I've learned since-school have all been 
through "immersion" in another culture; which I'd suggest is a more 
effective method (yet has its own dimension of "cruel"!) - but perhaps 
so, only because I had the 'base' (or the tools?) inculcated through my 
schooling (such as it was). Contrarily, my (somewhat younger) 
brother-in-law never studied languages at school, and struggled (and 
suffered) when he went to work in Germany - and was disgusted (envious) 
when I arrived and appeared to absorb the language 'by osmosis' (and a 
preparedness to make a fool of myself - something also learned at 
school, and impressed upon me by the Masters, without any trace of 
irony, but sometimes using impress-ively 'heavy weapons'...)

-- 
Regards,
=dn