While this can be done by directly working with the student, it is likely to be greatly assisted by advising caregivers to assist the individual with these five pathways of SR. Various cognitive behavioral therapies may prove useful at the re-appraisal pathway. The point here is not to map out all possible ways by which these five vectors of SR could be used to boost EF in those with EF deficits, but to make clinicians cognizant that such pathways are available. Related to this idea of motivational deficits accompanying EF disorders such as ADHD is the literature on self-regulatory strength and the resource pool of effort will power associated with activities of SR.
I'm responding just to bump this back to the top. Maybe posters will notice on the second try. I disputed this point, and Frank agreed with me: That translates to their being more expressive for those programs.
That's the state of the art right now. I have to imagine that you realize that when folks like Frank and I say "expressive," we are using the term formally, whereas your use of "more expressive" here is as a synonym for "more concise," and a major chunk of my point was that Frank and I had indeed already stipulated that untyped languages have a syntactic convenience benefit with respect to untyped code vs.
Indeed, this argument seems tautological to me. I'm saying that until these languages have been demonstrated being used successfully in the scenarios where untyped languages excel e. OK, I followed the link, read the three pages, and can't see anything there that untyped languages do any better than a good statically-typed language.
I'm sorry, but it just seems like every time the dynamic language apologists put forth their position, it reveals that they haven't actually done much research into what's available, today, on the static typing side, nevermind what's on the cutting edge.
You quoted someone at Cambridge maybe Peter Sewell, but the link was messed up: I'm afraid that my conclusion remains what it has been for the past years: Good heavens, no, that wasn't a quote!
I said that, and regrettably, it remains my overwhelming impression. Basically I keep seeing a chicken-and-egg problem: At some point the type theorist begins to wonder how serious the untyped language apologists are about wanting improvement.
At least I do. This is more of the attitude that I'm arguing against: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Certainly there hasn't been anything resembling an effective rebuttal of any of the points we've made; there's just been a lot of repetition of the claim that static type theorists haven't proven the value of their work.
Well, if you won't download it and try it, there's really not a lot more to say. It never seems to occur to wonder whether there's something that's been overlooked in terms of real-world requirements. Nothing would please me more than to see a set of real-world requirements from the untyped language side.
What we get instead are "How does your static language handle a list that contains objects and a dictionary? It's easy from the academic side to get infatuated with the beauty of a narrowly-focused theoretical system, forget about the hairy issues of integration with the rest of the world, and then blame everyone else when the results aren't universally acclaimed as being useful.
Clearly, these are just academics unconcerned with the requirements of the real world. Muttering about "industry still can't be bothered to be rigorous" is just the easy way out.
But I see no evidence that industry has actually made a good-faith effort to determine whether some of the practical work that's been done in static typing is useful to them or not.
Since that's a generalization that can't be proven one way or the other, and at the considerable risk of personal insult, I see no evidence that you have made such a good-faith effort. What I see is the same decade-old handwaving about how the Univ-based code that you write in an untyped language is awkward to express in a statically-typed language.
The problem with that is that it might be a non-trivial time commitment to do so. My perspective is very far from academic.CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case CCT 60/ MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS First Applicant DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HOME AFFAIRS Second Applicant versus.
Many students find essay writing to be an especially daunting task.
Depending on the essay topic, research can take anywhere from a few hours to several days and . The Public Inspection page on grupobittia.com offers a preview of documents scheduled to appear in the next day's Federal Register issue. The Public Inspection page may also include documents scheduled for later issues, at the request of the issuing agency.
Assignment: Summary, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Due day 5 in Assignment Tab) • Resource: Appendix F • Read the four sample paragraphs in Appendix F. • Identify whether the paragraph was a summary, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. • Write a paragraph explaining the key differences between the four types of writing.
(Word count words) A summary . A literature review may consist of simple a summary of key sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate.
write a paragraph explaining the key differences between the four types of writing. summary, analysis,synthesis, and evaluation. mnm Write one paragraph explaining the key differences between the four types of writing (summary, analysis, synthesis, and .