That is just one example of the tone of this book, and I just don't like it, and I don't understand why it has so many supposedly adult people accepting things like:
> No, seriously, type it 20 times and say it out loud. Sssh. Just do it.
I supposed it was a kind of cold joke but it appears not to be. It is just very disrespectful for the reader. Grown up human beings are not to be taken by the hand like /this/ to learn something as serious and advanced as command line.
And here you are complaining, avoiding, being offended, giving your opinion, generally doing anything and everything except learning.
Seriously. Shh. Just do it. Shh meaning stop all the opinionating. Just do it meaning only do that and not all the surrounding fuss and bluster.
It's not disrespectful, it's pragmatic, you're reading his book to learn, what are you doing thinking things like "I don't want to type it 20 times, I've typed it 5 times and I know it already, this is stupid, it's boring, I'm not saying it out loud, that's embarassing, blah blah blah"? You chose to read this book to learn, do what he says. No, shh, just do it.
The problem is not with rote learning. The problem is with the tone of this. Compare with LPythonTHW for an example of similar rote learning, but with explanations of why and a less angry tone.
You can't seriously compare teaching command line kungfu to some wannabee geeks in their spare time with the hardcore brainwashing given to infantry troops so they acquire enough Pavlovian reflex to stand and run below a shower of bombs and bullets.
There are jobs like EMT or piloting aircraft where rote knowledge and practiced skills are necessary to save lives. The methods are effective in many tasks and careers. Touch typing is a good example. How long did it take you to learn to type your odourous knee-jerk reaction?
"You can't seriously compare teaching command line kungfu to some wannabee geeks in their spare time with the hardcore brainwashing given to infantry troops so they acquire enough Pavlovian reflex to stand and run below a shower of bombs and bullets."
1. All geeks learned the command line at some point. Even Linus. Calling the next Linux a "wannabee geek" is wrong.
2. basic training is for all soldiers, not just infantry soldiers. You choose infantry for the baggage it carried, and you didn't care that you were flat wrong.
3. I find your use of "pavlovian reflex" wrong. It has a negative connotation, but is all reflexive action "pavlovian". If so, all of my command line use is pavlovian because I do it reflexively without conscious thought. With that in mind, the military style is perfect because it's designed to train people to do things reflexively when the time comes.
4. basic training teaches many great things. You're dismissal of it as teaching people to "run below a shower of bombs" is wrong. I learned CPR amongst many other good things in basic. Things that again require one to do them almost reflexively, just like I use the command line.
1. If Linus is a geek (he is, isn't he?), then the next Linus is a wannabee geek. How is calling a wannabee geek a wannabe geek somehow wrong?
2. It was an example and he never said basic training was ONLY for infantry.
3. You say all reflexive action is pavlovian but then say that using the term pavlovian reflex is wrong. That is wrong.
4. He never indicated that basic training doesn't teach some decent things. However, it does also teach people to act on orders without thought. You may not like the reality communicated, but the reality is that one of the objectives for basic training is to indoctrinate and enforce conformity. So that when you do have to run below a shower of bombs and bullets you don't question it, you just do it.
In short, nothing he wrote was wrong. You just didn't like it.
I'll simply say that using the command line is a reflexive act, and that basic training, which is good at teaching reflexive actions, is a good model to use.
He thought otherwise, and since this the core of the issue, I believe he is wrong on the primary point.
His wording was intended to imply negative things with loose language, and if you can't see that then you can't.
I'll give one example. I said, "Grown adults are taught in a manner similar this everyday in basic training for the army."
He said, "You can't seriously compare teaching command line kungfu to some wannabee geeks in their spare time with the hardcore brainwashing given to infantry troops so they acquire enough Pavlovian reflex to stand and run below a shower of bombs and bullets."
You claim he didn't say that basic is ONLY for infantry. True, but then I have no idea what he was saying. I said that basic is a good model for teaching reflexive action. He was responding to that, so he was either creating a straw man with the infantry thing, or he did get it wrong that basic is ONLY for infantry.
also, a wannabe is pejorative, here's the wikipedia definition.
A wannabe (slang for "want to be") is a person with an ambition to be someone or something that she/he is not. The term is pejorative and intends to convey the foolish nature of the desire due to the incompetence of the "wannabe" to accomplish the goal.
> No, seriously, type it 20 times and say it out loud. Sssh. Just do it.
I supposed it was a kind of cold joke but it appears not to be. It is just very disrespectful for the reader. Grown up human beings are not to be taken by the hand like /this/ to learn something as serious and advanced as command line.