Learning a software paradigm

Posted: January 6, 2016 in DCI, Development process, Thoughts on development

Over the last several years I’ve written quite a few posts on DCI in various fora. Especially in response to someone trying to learn DCI. I’ve come upon the same problem over and over again and last night it happened once more. Essentially, it comes to this line of Q&A

Q: “I’ve started learning DCI and want to understand how it’s superior to OO could you please write an example so that I can understand”
A: “There are quite a few examples on http://fulloo.info/Examples. Have you studied those?”
Q: “Yes, but those didn’t compare OO and DCI, so I still don’t understand. Could you please write an example that will help me understand?”

The questioner is genuine in his wish to understand DCI but the line of questioning is in my view odd, but trying to tell anyone that, will usually end with an unfruitful discussion about the mentors way of teaching.

This post is me trying to shed some light on why this line of questioning doesn’t lead to the desired outcome for the questioner and to give an alternate approach.

Let’s try something else than a paradigm shift because they are inherently hard.  Let’s try comparing encryption schemes

Q: “I’ve started learning encryption and I’ve seen AES and DES. I don’t understand why AES is better than DES, I need an example that shows why”

A: “I could give you an example of a text encrypted with both but you want to be able to see why one is better than the result from the other. They are different in how they accomplish the result. If you understood some of the theory, such as entropy we could probably have an informed discussion”

Q: “I don’t want to have a theory discussion, I just need an example”

A: “There are plenty of examples out there, have you studied those?”

Q: “Yes, but they didn’t tell me why AES is better than DES”

A: “No and that’s because the difference is in the process if you studied some of the theory and experimented a bit we could have an informed discussion”

Q: “I don’t want to discuss the theory I want to understand it from looking at the result”


I don’t think anyone believes you would learn encryption from looking at the result. Even for extremely simple stuff. Stuff we can teach to small kids you can’t even as an adult learn from looking at the result. Below I’ve represented a concept you know, in an unfamiliar notation. It’s extremely simple and you even know the concept and theory, but I’m confident that you will have a pretty hard time answering the question

3 3 44

44 11 6

44 2 9

3 44 88

3 2 5

88 44 ?



It’s simple math. Stuff my daughter was able to do in her head before starting in school. But from looking at the examples you didn’t learn much. However, if you know just a little number theory and know the notation I’ve used, then it would be very easy for me to explain addition to you. Let’s repeat: This is a simple addition, none of the results are larger than 9 and you couldn’t understand it from five examples. However, if we had spent 25s for you to understand the notation and maybe 1 minute to understand numbers (if you didn’t already) then I could explain addition to you in 10s and you could use the examples to test your understanding. That is what examples are for. You test your understanding against them. Maybe your understanding matches and maybe it doesn’t. If it doesn’t you are likely to have a ton of informed questions that can help you further, but those are all questions you wouldn’t have been able to ask if you didn’t understand the basic theory.

Now imagine that we are not talking about the addition of one digit positive integer but an entire believe system.  First of all to discus which is more suitable we need to agree on what’s suitable. If we can agree on that we can then discuss which believe system is more stable. So let’s just say for now that we agree that comprehensibility makes a programming paradigm more suitable. Then we need to agree on what makes code comprehensible. There’s quite some research and theory into what makes something hard or difficult to reason about and theories can be found in  Neuro-/psychology, didactics. Philosophy and Neurology but also in math. The first four can tell us how we learn, remember and understand information, whereas the latter can tell us about abstraction and compression and other more abstract perspectives on information theory. If I can’t make you understand single digit math in five complete examples, then how am I going to show differences in comprehensibility based on theories in at least 5 different branches of science spanning both human and natural sciences, in one example that has to be small and therefor can have no chance of being complete?


I’m all for challenges, but this one is not one I think I’m going to solve presently. This is made even harder because most of the people coming to learn DCI has a preconceived idea that they know what OO is, however they usually know so technical merits that has nothing to do with the mainly psychological background and basis for OO. So they’ll first have to admit that what they thought they knew about OO is at best a half truth and sometimes even a lie.


If you have come this far you must be tenacious and I promise I’m almost done. I will wrap up with a step by step guide to understanding of DCI

  1. Accept that what you know about OO, probably has very little to do with the foundation of OO. After all the inventor of OO claims there’s only one real OO system in the world (the internet)
  2. Either familiarize yourself with research into how we learn, modeling and information theory or take the easy route and accept the postulates from authorities at face value
  3. Read articles about how to apply DCI, there’s a few on this site with likes to even more
  4. Experiment and don’t forget to reflect upon the result
  5. Ask questions based on your experiments and reflections
  6. Publish the resulting examples, at best as part of the Trygve repository
  7. Repeat step 2-5 until you gained the level of understanding you desire

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s