D-type and I-type (was: Teaching in abstract terms)

[Stan Brown]

In article <s64421.666449403 at zeus>, s64421 at zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes:
> On the contrary.  Too many textbooks and instructors in the more
> esoteric universities deliberately teach programming in an etherial
> style which bears no relation to the actual world.  Thank heavens
> C books avoid this.  In fact, and this is my main point, IT IS
> VERY MUCH HARDER TO START WITH THE ABSTRACT AND MOVE TO THE CONCRETE
> THAN TO START WITH THE CONCRETE AND MOVE TO THE ABSTRACT.  That is,
> teach by examples!  THEN show the principles behind them. 

This works for you; great.  But it works best the other way for me.

A few months ago, the last time we had the which-C-book-is-best religious
argument, I pointed out that there are D-type and I-type thinkers. 

D-type (deductive) like to see the principles, then maybe one example. 
They thrive on working out the implicatuions of general principles
stated as concisely as possible.  I-type (inductive) prefer the style
you mention above.

Nerither is right or wrong.  It is most effective for D-type persons to
have D-type books (like K&R) and D-type instructors, and for I-type
persons to have I-type books and instructors.

My observation is that the majority (80-90%) of persons are I-type. 
Since I'm D-type, when I wrote manuals I wrote D-type manuals and
couldn't understand why sso many people didn't read what was right there
on the page.  It was years later that I realized the problem: I was
writing D-type manuals for an audience of predominantly I-type readers.

It's okay to have these religious discussions, but let's remember that
there is not One True Answer (TM).

Hey--this is all my opinion, nobody else's. Rely on it at your peril.
                                   email: browns at iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA    +1 216 371 0043