Since you bring up Programming; yes, it is a good example.
It is a good example of the need not to ignore any errors.
Double-guessing how some incorrect maths or code may have worked, given a lot of imagination and goodwill, is the start of the slippery slope. It is not something computers can do, as we all know.
The 'procedural' approach to maths is a good thing, though the right initial description is not to be underestimated. It boils down to good teaching.
There are many similarities between maths and computing and often the keen game-players are quite good at maths too, so perhaps the problem is how to motivate those who are not in this category?
I agree that reducing the effort does matter. Especially in maths, where it often leads to a better method. I was trying to argue against giving credit for increasing the effort leading to the wrong answer.
The 'procedural' approach to maths is a good thing, though the right initial description is not to be underestimated. It boils down to good teaching.
There are many similarities between maths and computing and often the keen game-players are quite good at maths too, so perhaps the problem is how to motivate those who are not in this category?
I agree that reducing the effort does matter. Especially in maths, where it often leads to a better method. I was trying to argue against giving credit for increasing the effort leading to the wrong answer.