in reply to Are there questions to basic?

I guess what I'm asking is: Are there questions that are too basic? Should a newbie be required to pour over the docs for answers that we can provide in 5 seconds?

I would say absolutely! Getting answers in five seconds isn't a good way of learning. And, if you repeatedly do it, you won't learn anything but how someone else says to do it. It is amazing what you can learn when trying to find a 'simple' answer in the docs. You may be looking up something simple about how to make a coderef, and suddenly get sidetracked into sockets or OO. The path to find an answer contains other answers of unasked questions.

I just remember being really green, and not even knowing how to get at the docs to review them.

That may be the real problem. I don't think every person asking a simple question is simply lazy. I think one problem is that they do not know about perldoc, or the wealth of information they can find on the web (tutorials, books, articles, etc...) by default. I think it is our job to point (or prod) people into looking at the docs, even tell them the exact place the answer is, just don't tell them the answer. (this goes for novice-like questions)

Or is it more like a Monk saying, “here’s a fish, and there is a stash of fishing rods over behind those rocks for next time…

Well, being a vegetarian I like this better: Give a person a carrot they eat for a day, show them how to grow a garden, they eat for a lifetime.

Cheers,
KM

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: Are there questions to basic?
by jplindstrom (Monsignor) on Oct 12, 2000 at 01:15 UTC
    I guess what I'm asking is: Are there questions that are too basic? Should a newbie be required to pour over the docs for answers that we can provide in 5 seconds?
    I would say absolutely! Getting answers in five seconds isn't a good way of learning. And, if you repeatedly do it, you won't learn anything but how someone else says to do it.
    Actually, my experience is fundamentally different.

    One of my most enjoyable learning experiences is learning a) a new language, and b) the programming practices and use of an existing code base by sitting among three other programmers and being able to just throw out quick questions, getting answers within seconds.

    I realize that maybe Perlmonks isn't the same thing, but I can say that I would like to have that kind of quick and responsive environment on the Net as well.

    I'm not saying that you shouldn't read the manual, because you really should! I'm saying that sometimes you learn better by getting a quick solution to your immediate problem than you do by getting a reference to The Whole Picture(tm) in the form of a dense man page when you're not ready for it.

    Knowledge doesn't expand 100% to new areas all at once. It slowly grows and deepens by internalizing what you read and do. When you have the personal experience of doing something you are so much more prepared to understand the theoretical base of that "something".

    /J

[reply]
      There are degrees. At my stage in Perl knowlege, I will get a lot more from a quick answer because I can understand various thing surrounding the issue I need an immediate solution/answer for. I don't think I have come across too many newbies (or any) who can get a quick answer and actually learn from it, without asking 10 other questions. This is why learning to read the docs (et al) are useful for this skill level because they can find the answers to their questions, and side-knowlege along the way. It will also help them learn to learn for those times when they do not have three other programmers around them to ask questions to. I'm saying that sometimes you learn better by getting a quick solution to your immediate problem than you do by getting a reference to The Whole Picture(tm) in the form of a dense man page when you're not ready for it.

      Which do you think would help someone learn better if they ask the simple "how to I remove whitespace from a string?". By you showing them the regex so they can cut/paste it? Or by being refered to perlre and the FAQ (of which that is a question in)? I believe the later is a more effective way. It will take longer to grasp a concept by trying to learn by sound bits and specific snippets (like the regex only). The knowlege one would take from reading perlre to find their answer would in turn answer future questions.

      I am not sure what dense man page you are talking about. Most of the Perl documentation is quite verbose and well explained (with some exceptions). And, when do you propose someone is ready to learn from the documentation of the product they are using? After a year? After asking every FAQ question to cow-orkers and people on the internet?

      Personally, I learned Perl from reading the documentation and learning how other peoples scripts worked (and didn't work). No classes, no mono-a-mano.

      Knowledge doesn't expand 100% to new areas all at once. It slowly grows and deepens by internalizing what you read and do. When you have the personal experience of doing something you are so much more prepared to understand the theoretical base of that "something".

      Yes, so someone needs to read and do to learn.. not ask for 'the answer'. This whole discussion came about from wondering about simple questions from newbies, not about needing quick solutions to complex problems. If people are spoon fed answers from early on, they may not learn the tools needed to fend for themselves.

      Cheers,
      KM

[reply]

In Section Meditations