LOGO-L> Re: LOGO-L> NewsScan Daily
I agree wholeheartedly with Ken. As a kid, I strongly disliked puzzles,
board games and even LEGO. Programming created a context in which I could
solve "real" problems. The fact that many problems offered opportunities
for multiple solutions added another dimension to the creative/analytic
Music composition and arranging provided me with the same opportunities
to explore multiple solutions to a problem by applying previous
strategies and "rules" to a different context. This may have been because
I didn't have a very good ear, but was fascinated by the relationships
found in harmony.
OK, I was failing at school math while programming and composing music.
It was the mathematical processes/patterns of both math and computer
science that appealed to me while school math did not. Isn't a shame that
we can't do more to provide a variety of experiences to engage all sorts
>> WORTH THINKING ABOUT: BRAIN TEASERS
>> Martin Gardner, who for many years edited Scientific American's
>> mathematical games department, argued that puzzles are more than fun and
>> "Please do not suppose that the only function of puzzles is to
>> entertain. Puzzles are a way of teaching mathematics. Indeed, they are
>> the best way to teach it.
>As a child I loved puzzles and don't doubt I learned much from them. BUT
>when I discovered computer programming, I found I rarely did puzzles
>anymore. Why? I think it is because I found programming to be like puzzle
>solving only much much more. Figuring out how to construct a piece of a
>program or track down a program bug is very much like puzzle solving. But
>programming has so many other attractive qualities. You can create things
>and universes by programming. And programs can be run on a computer - making
>your creations come alive.
>Now I am not trying to start a "puzzles vs. programming" argument. I agree
>with Bob Gorman that we should have both. But given a limited amount of
>time, I'd recommend programming over puzzles.
>-ken kahn (www.toontalk.com)