Agree, it almost highlights how bad others descriptions can be sometimes. I mean the article makes it feel like such a simple idea given how many words are spoken about it.
I wonder if the key is in quickly grounding the core abstractions with concrete meaning early on, that way your mind quickly has a model of "things" to operate on before attempting to build up the behaviour with more abstract description.
Many descriptions stay in the abstract too long without anything to attach it to for the uninitiated... in which case you either persevere and eventually it clicks and all the relationships fall into place - or you give up out of disinterest.
I've noticed this when explaining things to others, especially non-technical people, when explaining seemingly very simple things, attempting to describe them in multiple ways and failing, and then realizing they need clarification of the "what", after which explanation is easy - sometimes you are blind to it when you already know "what" and already have the mental model so you jump straight into how and why.
I wonder if the key is in quickly grounding the core abstractions with concrete meaning early on, that way your mind quickly has a model of "things" to operate on before attempting to build up the behaviour with more abstract description.
Many descriptions stay in the abstract too long without anything to attach it to for the uninitiated... in which case you either persevere and eventually it clicks and all the relationships fall into place - or you give up out of disinterest.
I've noticed this when explaining things to others, especially non-technical people, when explaining seemingly very simple things, attempting to describe them in multiple ways and failing, and then realizing they need clarification of the "what", after which explanation is easy - sometimes you are blind to it when you already know "what" and already have the mental model so you jump straight into how and why.