Dec. 4, 2006, 12:24 p.m. (Message 47261)
Peter Price wrote: > A map is an abstraction of the real world - you gain infomation but in > exchange you loose some as well. A good example can be found if you are a > member of Google. They offer a map service - you can look at a pure map, a > satelite photo or a hybrid (map overlay on top of photo). Each gives you a > different kind and degree of information. You don't have to be a member of Google -- just look at http://www.strathspey.org/maps/scdmap.html :^) > This works for me. It may not work for you. I certainly think that > Pilling's idea is at least the equal of sliced bread. And I know people who > are completely disoriented by Pilling diagrams - they simply don't think > that way. That's exactly my point. If you will you can (cruelly, but effectively) divide people like so: 1. People who can't handle Scottish country dancing. 2. People who can handle Scottish country dancing. 2.1. People who can't also handle Pilling diagrams. 2.2. People who can also handle Pilling diagrams. To be able to use Pilling diagrams, you not only must be able (as any Scottish country dancer ought to) to translate »rights and lefts« into a certain series of movements on the dance floor, but you must also be able to figure out that »RL« stands for »rights and lefts«. This is a fairly obvious connection to make, unlike some of the other symbols (many people I know get thrown by the symbols for »ladies' chain« and »men's chain«; I *think* that the »pons asinorum« in this case is that the ladies' chain's interlocked squares derive from the »square« symbol for ladies in general, and the other way round for men, but who is to say?). If I may be excused a simile from computer programming, if the movements on the floor are »machine language«, the standard dance terminology, stuff like »rights and lefts«, is something like the »C« language -- still fairly low-level but without all the complicated details of getting from A to B [sic]. Pilling sits (mostly) on top of standard dance terminology and could be considered a »very high level language«. Layers of abstraction! (Non-programmers may now wake up again.) Relying exclusively on Pilling-style diagrams would be as wrong as relying exclusively on oral transmission of dances, or exclusively on long-form dance descriptions, or exclusively on »minicribs«. They all have their advantages and disadvantages, many of which have been aired on this list in the past. Personally I vastly prefer Pilling-style diagrams (with all their shortcomings) to »minicribs« as dance reminders. Other people feel differently. How does it matter when we can still do the same dance in the same set together? Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx You write a great program, regardless of language, by redoing it over & over & over & over, until your fingers bleed and your soul is drained. But if you tell newbies that, they might decide to go off and do something sensible, like bomb defusing. -- Tim Peters