I don't have that much to say about the article. I'll agree with what Amanda said at the end of her reaction. Both this paper and the "Literate Programming" were about people who had programmed before. Each one assumed a base level of knowledge that the user knew. Albeit feasible to design large programs or networks without high level programming experience, I would argue that in practice, it is highly unlikely.

I understand why we have looked at the two readings this week; their subject matter has relevance to our GISP, but I feel that the presentation of both material was filled with confusing examples and not enough description for the novice reader. They were both geared towards the upper crust of computer science education and assumed a higher level of understanding than I possess about said topics. The Framework for Patterns paper droned on about in depth topics, and, to be trite and cliche, got lost in the trees without looking at the forest.

MY COMMENTS:

I love it when I'm on the same wavelength with another.

MY COMMENTS:

I have to agree with Saul about this paper, it did not provide much useful information for how to teach design to students at an introductory level. Instead of using different languages, I think more examples of how things were designed and why, wo uld give students a better understanding of how to design programs.