On 2007-04-19, Wayne Brehaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 10:54:20 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>On 2007-04-19, Michael Bentley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 19, 2007, at 4:11 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> >>>> On 2007-04-19, Michael Bentley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> PyObjC is pretty slick (and since Ronald hasn't made any commits in a >>>>> while I'm nearly certain it'll show up in the next official >>>>> distribution of the devtools). About the time you gave up on PyQt on >>>>> the Mac and switched over to Tkinter, I switched to PyObjC. The >>>>> learning curve is rather steep IMO, but worth it. >>>> >>>> Just a throw in remark, that you may ignore if you wish, but a steep >>>> learning curve means that the subject is easily familiarized and that >>>> the learning period is short. >>>> >>>> You seem to use it as if it is the opposite. >>> >>> Mathematical absurdities aside, it's the common usage -- but perhaps >>> you knew that. >> >>I don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is a mathematical >>absurdity but consider this: If you find that common usage propagates >>something that is incorrect, should we just shrug it off or should we >>attemp a correction? There is always a chance that one day you find >>yourself exposed to a learning curve while going through a document. >>If you just depend on common usage you will probably draw the wrong >>conclusion. > > The only way one could assume the "common usage" to be a mathematical > absurdity would be not to think about it or not to have much > mathematical insight or "maturity". Is a vertical cliff not steep no > matter how high it is? And is a gentle grade (say <= 10%) not > un-steep no matter how long it is? Is the slope of a curve dependent > on its length? > > So the remark that " a steep learning curve means that the subject is > easily familiarized and that the learning period is short" is > completely incorrect on two points (i.e., all points that are > relevant): first, steep always implies much to learn in a relatively > short time (what else could the slope of a curve possibly mean > "mathematicallY" or logically?);
No it doesn't imply that at all. A learning curve doesn't show some goal of a person who was given just so much time to familiarize himself with some material. A learning curve shows the progres that is made in familiarizing one self while studying. A steep curve means a lot of actual learning in a short time. > second, steepness is independent of > length, so "steep" has no implication in general about how long the > learning curve will be--on the contrary, in fact, it's quite possible > that a learning curve will never have any great challenges (steep > portions) but be only a very long gradual process--as the learning of > many natural languages is. That doesn't contradict that if one language has a steeper curve to learn than a second. Familiarisation with the first language will be faster and easier than with the second. > A learning curve is conventionally the graph of a function of > "quantity to be learned" vs. time, No it doesn't. A learning curve is the graph that somehow quantifies what is actually learned vs time. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
