I think one of the problems that we have in learning 'how' is that it is very easy to explain why you have chosen a particular solution, but it is not easy to go through and explain why you did not choose the near infinite number of other solutions that were available for the task. It is this negative knowledge that is so hard to communicate.
When I am training up junior programmers, I spend a lot of time explaining to them why I have chosen certain patterns in the code that they should use. Nevertheless, they invariably come back with 'yes, but why don't we do it this other way?" and then I have to explain to them the problems that that solution will lead to.
This article makes a false argument. It somehow seems to categorize programming as being different than other disciplines, and argues that programming needs "knowledge how". But this is really the case for virtually everything. What isn't best learned by practice? That's how you best learn math, plumbing, mowing the grass, writing, reading, circuit design, cooking, research, shooting free throws, etc...
In fact, everyone here knows about the popular 10,000 hours of deliberate practice rule. No one achieves competency through Matrix like osmosis -- not even programmers.
And I think what the author is missing when he/she goes to these conferences is that a conference session is a jumping off point. It's a place say, "I didn't realize you could animate that with that technique." And then you go home and try it and practice it. It's not about mastery at the conference, but awareness of something worth pursuing more.
I think you're modifying the argument yourself. I saw, at no point, where the author argued that programming, design, etc. are _different_ from other disciplines. It simply states that the author believes they are better learned by doing than by reading (to over-simplify it). I don't see where the author condemns any other method. I actually don't see any point at which you and the author are in disagreement.
Fair points all. What I read was that he'd prefer more hands-on (i.e. watch me do the craft) types of presentations, whether at school or academia, rather than didactic rules to follow or some other form. This is one type of instruction and I think it can be useful to see more of it. Nevertheless, I don't see a particular shortage of such how-tos and I think there's room for multiple types of instruction. As the author and commentators seem to agree: there is no replacement to practicing it to actually learn how to do something.
Perhaps he was simply being modest. "UI design, programming, and product strategy" are just the three specific subjects he has felt qualified to "long argue" about.
I tend to agree with this and don't buy the idea that college is necessary to give you a broad overview of a discipline.
Sure, if you learn only one method of doing something, you are not exposing yourself to other ways. But whats to stop you from finding out about these other ways.
This information is easier then ever to find. Surely the time for hand-me down curation (academia style) is approaching its end.
The only differences between conference sessions and workshops are a) length and b) number of people in the room. How you use an hour in front of a room of people is up to you. Conference sessions don't have to be limited to bullets on a slide or purely declarative knowledge.
[+] [-] demallien|14 years ago|reply
When I am training up junior programmers, I spend a lot of time explaining to them why I have chosen certain patterns in the code that they should use. Nevertheless, they invariably come back with 'yes, but why don't we do it this other way?" and then I have to explain to them the problems that that solution will lead to.
[+] [-] run4yourlives|14 years ago|reply
If anything you seem to be saying that you find being a mentor a p.i.t.a, which is perfectly valid but not really a part of this conversation.
[+] [-] kenjackson|14 years ago|reply
In fact, everyone here knows about the popular 10,000 hours of deliberate practice rule. No one achieves competency through Matrix like osmosis -- not even programmers.
And I think what the author is missing when he/she goes to these conferences is that a conference session is a jumping off point. It's a place say, "I didn't realize you could animate that with that technique." And then you go home and try it and practice it. It's not about mastery at the conference, but awareness of something worth pursuing more.
[+] [-] mileszs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickgeiger|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] audionerd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dot-dot-dot|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huy|14 years ago|reply
It's because he went to design CONFERENCE, not design WORKSHOP. The nature of conference speech is so much different from workshop.
[+] [-] rsinger9|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riledhel|14 years ago|reply