I have to start this specifying and expanding on what I refer when I say that I’m dyscalculic:

  1. I have both types of developmental dyscalculia.
  2. The functional type of dyscalculia I have is the intermediate dyscalculia; citing the dyscalculia definition page in Edubloxtutor, it’s the «inability to work with symbols and numbers, especially when abstract signs (like √, ×, <, >) or large figures are involved. This type often overlaps with conditions like dyspraxia or dyslexia.» I don’t have dyslexia though, but idk about the dyspraxia.
  3. I have the lexical and operational forms of dyscalculia. As per Edubloxtutor:
    • Lexical dyscalculia: This subtype refers to difficulties in reading and recognizing mathematical symbols, such as digits or operation signs. Students with this subtype may misread symbols (e.g., confusing a “6” with an “8” or “+” with “×”), which interferes with both understanding and solving problems.
      • I don’t have so many difficulties with digits, only when they’re either too big or too small, or if they have too many decimals.
    • Operational dyscalculia: Even when students understand the symbols and concepts involved, they may still struggle to carry out the steps of arithmetic operations (like borrowing or carrying in subtraction and addition). Operational dyscalculia reflects a breakdown in the ability to perform calculations in a logical and sequential manner.
  1. My cognitive subtype is the Memory Dyscalculia: «Weaknesses in both working memory and long-term memory, particularly in recalling arithmetic facts, procedures, or sequences.»
  2. I also struggle with ADHD and autism, as well as bipolar disorder, so these four things interact.
  3. I’m confident in that I’m actually really strong in formal logic, although only in natural language, because in symbolic formal logic I’m horrible (and that is to be expected, tho, because I struggle with abstract symbols in general); curiously, or perhaps predictably, and maybe I’m that good in logic because I’m that bad in maths.

So, what I would like to know is, are there any programming languages (or maybe some libraries) that, despite being (or making these not-so-dyscalculic-friendly languages) accesible and not too math-centered (I want to avoid them as much as possible) and with a friendly learning curve, don’t sacrifice that much performance, efficiency, lightweightness, security and all that?

I’m particularly obsessed with performance, lightweightness and efficiency because I have a PC that, despite being actually decent (screenshot below), I constantly do hardware-intensive things and I love ricing, customizing and having powerful and featureful tools, but most of them are just so bloated (i.e. most Zettelstaken-style outliners are or written with Electron [or even Tauri], or too bare-bones, and I want both featurefulness AND efficiency, functionality AND lightweightness [I hate Suckless btw]).

Also, I need to know, what are the best tutorials (if they’re in Spanish, better, because I only understand well the written English, I struggle with spoken English), courses (same here) and resources in general to learn programming that are dyscalculia-friendly (better if they’re explicitly tagged or categorized as such)?

I feel really alienated because most of them do assume that you’re idk, Ramanujan, or something like him, at least from my perspective and lived experience, and I’d really love to be able to program my own tools and to be able to contribute to projects I like with features I’d love to see there, and to fork some tainted projects and make an untainted version, etc.

TL;DR:

I have developmental dyscalculia (both functional and cognitive subtypes): intermediate functional (struggles with abstract symbols and large numbers), lexical (misreads math symbols, especially with many decimals or extreme sizes), operational (can’t execute sequential arithmetic steps), and memory-based (poor working/long-term recall of arithmetic facts and procedures). I also have ADHD, autism, and bipolar disorder, which all interact. I’m strong in natural-language logic but weak in symbolic logic (expected, given my symbol difficulties).

What I’m asking:

  1. Languages/libraries: Which programming languages or libraries are not math-heavy, have a gentle learning curve, and still deliver good performance, efficiency, and lightweightness? I want to avoid Electron/Tauri bloat and Suckless bare-bones; I want both featureful and efficient.
  2. Learning resources: What tutorials, courses, or resources exist that are explicitly dyscalculia-friendly (or at least don’t assume strong number sense)? Spanish is strongly preferred; written English is fine, spoken English is not.

Goal: Build my own tools, contribute features to projects I like, and fork/fix projects that are tainted by AI.

PS: I mean tainted as per OpenSlopware definitions

  • luciferofastora@feddit.org
    1·
    2 days ago

    To preface this: Our main difference here is where we think ethical concerns should be addressed. I consider my approach a pragmatic concession to the reality we’re dealing with, but I understand and respect your idealistic stance as well.

    I’m familiar with OpenSlopware, agree with all their criticism of the evils of LLMs and consult their list myself. I disagree with them only in the expectation that project maintainers become moral guardians against unethical contributions, rather than just against low quality ones. To reject obvious slop (such as the AI-generated commit messages you mention) or entirely vibe-coded word salad, absolutely, but that goes for all low-quality code. “Generated by Claude” or naming the code generator as author happen to be very convenient indicators that the author didn’t actually do any due diligence, nor is willing to accept responsibility. “Copied from StackOverflow” is likewise indicative of the user not actually understanding the code.

    But to track down finer evidence of AI Assistance feels like a big ask to me, and not strictly necessary for the mission of delivering high-quality results. If they wanna do so, power to them, and I understand and approve that OpenSlopware will want to document that so people can take a closer look.

    My argument is that AI use alone doesn’t necessarily produce bad code (bad coders do, including LLMs), and that the fight against the social and ecological evils is a political measure that shouldn’t be universally demanded of individuals. Power and water distribution should prioritise residential consumption and critical services (hospitals etc.), for instance, and impose measured to ensure fair allotment, such as caps and bracketed pricing to make excessive use or operation of data centres economically unfeasible. I’m not going to address each individual point and hope you get the general idea.

    For your specific arguments:

    not having an anti-AI policy at all

    Absolutely in agreement: that is reckless and irresponsible.

    a weak, flexible and/or permissive policy, is going to make AI boosters and sloperators to put even less effort to their “contribs” and make a higher volume of these, thus leading to maintainer and contributor burden

    This is where I see more nuance in the exact form “permissive” takes, for the reasons mentioned above. I think a high bar for quality and the contributor’s understanding of the code, while technically still permissive, will dissuade the lazy and ward off the cognitive decline concern: if you lean on AI tools so hard you can’t explain the code you submitted, regardless of authorship, you’re no longer fit to submit code until you (re-)build coding skills.

    As for maintainer fatigue, like I said above, I agree that collectively rejecting PRs with “Generated by Claude” and equivalent commit messages or comments will help shut down the laziest attempts. Likewise, huge PRs should be broken up, to make checking them more feasible, reduce the risk (and amount) of merge conflicts and filter out the “thousand lines to move a button” type of changes.

    Together, these should prevent low-effort contributions. Again, I already consider them necessary policies for contributions in general, with the anti-AI parts serving to explicitly shut down those boosters who assert that unrefined “crude” slop would be good enough.

    a strict, strong and inflexible anti-AI policy at least can disuade and make her stomach hurt in a way that they won’t feel so comfortable doing their AI-shit in there

    I doubt it will make them uncomfortable. Those unwilling to acknowledge the issues tend to be the blind worshipper type that will insist it’s the maintainers who are wrong.

    It might dissuade them, true. It might also just prompt them to hide the tracks in the attempt to prove a point. I’d rather have them admit it as an indicator that thorough review is necessary (and if it’s too long or convoluted for that review to be feasible, it ought to be rejected).

    In conclusion, I think code review should address the practical points as far as project maintenance is concerned, while the ideological ones should be dealt with on a cultural and political arena: shun the boosters and uncritical sloppers, fight the damage they do, charge the executives selling our future for their own gain.

    That is my opinion and recommendation, and you’re entitled to have your own opinion and disregard mine. I just want to make sure we understand each other.