in reply to models of models

The Programmers' Stone will interest you. It discusses the nature of programming as a problem-solving process, and much more.

For a little treasure-trove of existing thought models for programming, have a look at The Pattern Almanac 2000, a collection of short descriptions for existing Patterns, with extensive cross-indexing and categorization, and with a really good literature reference section.

Christian Lemburg
Brainbench MVP for Perl
http://www.brainbench.com

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (tillly) 2: models of models
by tilly (Archbishop) on Feb 09, 2001 at 19:43 UTC
    It may be personal, but I was not impressed by The Programmers' Stone. I didn't read the whole thing this time, but I read earlier versions. My impression then, and now upon reskimming, is that the author defines packer and mapper by analogy (never gives a real definition) and then proceeds to make it "us" versus "them" where "we" are great and "they" are rigid buffoons. So of course you want to be on of "us", don't you? And here is what "we" are like!

    I am sure he has a lot of interesting thoughts, but abusing rhetorical techniques like that raises red flags for me. Besides which I am not much of a joiner, and I really hate making decisions when I have less than 3 alternatives on the table. I find that with 2 it is too easy to get into "us vs them" thinking. With 3 I start being able to compare and contrast.

[reply]

In Section Meditations