RE: BlindConfidential: Learning to Program for the Blind
- From: "Ken Perry" <whistler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:27:06 -0800
Grin you should try Small talk. You can't do anything in small talk with
out an object but the language gives you so many objects to start its like
an object heaven. The problem is I have only found really one small talk
IDE that is accessible some what and until it has better scripts it is still
difficult to do stuff in. I was able to write some basic programs in it and
if your an OO thinking person Small talk will just turn your crank.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
james.homme@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 7:29 AM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: BlindConfidential: Learning to Program for the Blind
Hi Vili,
I come from a procedural background. I started with COBOL. I have made
several fits and starts at other languages. I have not yet found a way to
get over the OO learning curve. One reason is that I have not found a
project that really interests me. The other is that the books I am reading
teach the procedural side of languages like Python and then move into OO.
It seems like I would need to come up with a relatively big project to make
it worth doing in OO. I keep saying to myself that whatever I am thinking of
doing at the time is easier to do procedurally. I never find a compelling
enough reason to do OO. I read about how great it is in the programming
material I look at, but some how, that never translates into my learning
because I get intimidated by all the setting up of all the objects just to
get something simple done. There has to be some middle ground in all of this
somewhere.
Finally, I don't know enough to be able to tell if whatever project I am
thinking of doing is best to do in procedural or OO.
And one more thing while I'm rambling. It seems like OO really doesn't model
the real world even though the OO material I have read to this point says it
does. I should probably save that for another email though.
Thanks.
Jim
James D Homme, , Usability Engineering, Highmark Inc.,
james.homme@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 412-544-1810
"Never doubt that a thoughtful group of committed citizens can change the
world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
"Veli-Pekka
Tätilä"
<vtatila@xxxxxxxx To
dent.oulu.fi> programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: cc
programmingblind-
bounce@freelists. Subject
org Re: BlindConfidential: Learning to
Program for the Blind
11/12/2007 09:14
AM
Please respond to
programmingblind@
freelists.org
Hi Arnold,
I'm not sure Java might be the best start, either, although it is widely
popular. In our Uni in Finland Java is used mostly procedurally and there's
a separate course on object oriented programming, also in Java.
The authors of how to Think like a Computer Scientist, the PYthon edition.
argue that one of the strong points of multi-paradigm langs is that you
don't have to cover objects first. They clame it is hard to teach object
first, since to really understand them one needs knowledge of variables and
scope, functions, operators, parameters and all the OO jargon for relatively
non-magical things. WIth a multi paradigm language hello world is just like:
puts "hello world"
Or something like that, and you can start with very simple procedural
concepts, and cover functions, objects etc... when people are ready to tacle
them. I still recall trying to understand OOp from a procedural background
and all this talk of objects sending messages to each other and having
contracts just threw me off. But statements like basic objects are just like
structs with syntactic sugar for calling functions taking structs, and no
direct access to struct members allowed, are closer to a procedural
programmer mind set, and are more descriptive, too. There's even a book
about object oriented programming in c, though I wouldn't start with C.
Perl's object orientation heavily relies on procedural concepts and
references, too, but Perl is a bit too specialized to start with I'd say
e.g. no separate float, string and int handling, plus abnormally strong
string processing in the core. I'd start out with a conventional, statically
and strongly typed language at any case, since it is, in my view, easier to
see some advantages of both static and dynamic typing, if you have learned
static typing first. but that's just my experience, I'm just a student.
--
With kind regards Veli-Pekka Tätilä (vtatila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Accessibility, game music, synthesizers and programming:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~vtatila
Arnold Bailey wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Jared had my intentions right. I only meant to use it as a very basic
>tool for interactive use to show a first time middle schooler what a
>program
is.
>It is the interactive use that is a plus. My scenario doesn't require
>indentation, etc. After that first session I am using Java.
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
Other related posts:
