Summary: trial and error, accident, neither of these remove the fact if you
wish to deliberately create something, you must understand it.
In my
humble opinion, you haven't altered my position in the slightest. You also
haven't proved it incorrect.
Keep in mind: reasonable men can have
differing opinions and both be correct from their particular point of
view.
The process is more throwing everything into the project, let
it stew a while and then removing the parts that foul up the
results.
This is part 1: Trial and Error creation!
If I
understand you correctly: you're describing the basic process of trial and
error. Trial and error itself is deliberate. You take your current knowledge
base, throw it together, then start the trial and error process:
You
deliberately try something
see if that works to get the results you
wanted
learn from it (building that knowledge base)
make changes based
on what you learned
repeat.
This is not the deliberate creation of
what you may have been initially aiming for.
When Thomas Edison first
started trying to build the light bulb, he had a deliberate goal. But he was
unsuccessful. Maybe he was only unsuccessful once before he learned enough to
make the actual working lightbulb. Maybe he failed 10,000 times before he
learned enough he had success.
The point is:
He was learning while he
was working - and it was when his knowledge hit a level of sufficiency that he
successfully made what he was trying to.
Can things be created by accident?
Absolutely - but the very word accident shows it was not
deliberate:
something that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally
So
your own description of the process you claim shows the incorrectness of my
statement proves my statement. In parts, you are deliberately doing that which
you know. After that, you are "sifting through the chaff" learning and building
your knowledge base further till it's sufficient you have success.
Point
2: Random Chance. This should be obvious. Yes, a thousand monkeys pounding
away on keyboards could form the complete works of Shakespere. Removing the
potential that the monkey's were actually learning and became more intelligent
then we like to think as their limitations:
Pure chance proves deliberate
intent was lacking.
I stand by my statement:
You can not code what you
don't understand!
That doesn't mean you can't start and learn as you go
along. But that ultimate truth can't be changed.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
