Post #4383173

2026-08-04 19:21 UTC

I dunno I just feel like maybe I'm an outlier in my interest in being able to precisely tell computers what to do and to have them do that accurately and without spurious errors. I want accuracy, not a statistically-likely result. Computers are big calculators I use because they're good at math and I'm not. If I wanted inaccuracy I could just do math in my head

Replies (1)

@crypticrainfall@app.wafrn.net 2026-08-04 19:53

@foone@digipres.club It is not just you. I teach high school computer science and the first couple lessons in the curriculum are literally about exactly this. Multiple lessons. It's such a key component to why programming is the way it is, why it's important to learn programming when working with computers directly. It ties directly into the concepts for abstraction, the difference between high- and low-level programming languages, why errors happen. It's taught right out of the gate into a high school introductory programming class because it's fundamental. One of the earliest lessons is writing instructions for making a simple drawing, and then swapping and executing someone else's instructions. And the kids very quickly realize that precision is not really achievable in plain English. They need to know this before they program anything, and that's not from me that's from the curriculum. Other people know this. That's why I've been losing my mind with all these programmers falling into bed with AI for coding because hold on, isn't that kindof against the whole ethos of programming? What's even the point? Hello? Why are we ignoring one of the fundamental reasons for why programming is done?

Open ##4388486