Re: contacts, was: Re: [Gnumed-devel] DrugBrowser nicer piccie

[Richard Terry]

Your comment about the 'tools' is pertinant.

I can program fluently in visual basic, can write screeds of code very 
quickly. As I previously have mentioned on this list programs I've written 
for one commercial organisation are still in use 10 years later - and were 
delivered in beta testing with I think a total of only 4(four) bugs found 
during testing - still running on about a 40 macine computer network.

Postgres is only a moderate challenge, because SQL is the same wherever you do 
it, I've just got to get myhead around functions/rules/tiggers etc, and it is 
not the concepts around these, rather the syntax which trips me up.

Python is somewhat different, not in its constructs such as the ifs, elses, 
loops etc, but what I have huge difficulty getting my head around for some 
reason is the classes contruct, and when in use with wxPython, how the 
'parent', 'self', parameter stuff works. If ever that clicks with me I should 
be able to write code very quickly.

Unfortunatley most material on the web assumes a level of knowledge way above 
that of the begginer. The begginer examples are so childish, even a begginer 
would think so, but they jump totally over basic explanations which are 
necessary to understand.

And beleive me, I have spent mega-hours on the web finding tutorials - have 
found some which are useful. Progammers with left brains obvioulsy read this 
stuff and understand it. After using linux for 7-8 years, I still to this 
very day cannot understand a MAN file and the way they describe how to use a 
command. However if I see one concete example written down, it makes sense to 
me - but of course, a true unix geek will never do that for you, and if they 
do, they will only say 'well, you use the command blabla (which in itself 
needs multiple parameters which they can understand from the docs, but of 
course I can't)

Richard

On Thursday 02 February 2006 13:28, J Busser wrote:
> At 1:23 AM +0100 2/2/06, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> >  > I get totally put off my what seems to be your attitude, of 'why are
> >  > you
> >>
> >>  bothering - we have already done that.....'
> >
> >See, the thing is that I always mistakenly assumed you *already knew* how
> > to do it and I was always wondering why you would then want to redo it. I
> > did not realize you had to learn the How first.
>
> It is said that the smart person knows what to say, and the wise
> person whether or not to say it. And maybe I am neither :-)
>
> But I *do* think that partial understandings and misunderstanding
> have been a key part of some of the frustrations.
>
> Within what may be my limited perspective, Richard has always seemed
> highly able. But that might derive from whatever set or sets of
> computing approaches and tools he had already had the chance to
> master.
>
> For within familiar paradigms or approaches, a change of tools might
> be quite manageable. But if it is more than just the tools that need
> to be learned (and sometimes even just learning the new tools is a
> challenge) it explains how some online proposed approaches,
> "solutions", and even explanations, can be over people's heads.
>
> Others can venture any cultural insights. For example, whether within
> a "Germanic / Teutonic" mode, something that seems easy to a person
> (who happens to know it or find it easy) can be rightly pronounced to
> be "easy" without meaning to imply (though it can be taken as
> implying) that others should also have an easy time. Maybe that is
> misinterpreted as indifference, or worse.
>
> See, I am sure Horst finds everything easy. Which I interpret to mean
> I might never be able to do it except after 10 years. Whereas if he
> said "dead easy", I would figure on 5 years. It doesn't occur to me
> to get upset about it. But I suppose I might get upset, if I expected
> to be able to do something in 3-6 months that then proved beyond me
>
> :-)
>
> Mostly I think we are struggling around "nearly" being able to get
> GNUmed off the ground. It has not quite enough development. We would
> like it to be more developed, to make it more "adoptable". I keep
> thinking if I and a few others can get it running, obtaining enough
> value from it to want to depend on it for clinical use, we might
> commit to finding or hiring a bit of help. Help that, in helping
> locally, also contributes to the project.
>
> That won't solve the circularity for any who feel that to be usable,
> its GUI and functions must be many and well-built from the start. But
> maybe the circularity is solvable by those with lesser demands on
> GNUmed, who could tolerate some limited function, yet contribute
> support (or their support people) to a concerted re-write. I am happy
> to hang in, while still being entreated locally to use something else.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnumed-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel