Hi all, I chose python because it was quick and easy to istal and use. I will look into ruby though. My thoughts of Java was for high schol students, because when they get to college, it will be Java initially. From Java, C++ can easily be learned. But, I agree 100% on the procedural compiler for those not ready to learn OO. Basic does even make sense because that is what my older son learned at 7 on TI computer. Would Visual Basic or Ruby be advised for the "tweeners"? Also, I'm a member of the NFB and this is our local initiative. Mentoring is part of this; but, it's just the beginning. I was told by an unnamed person high up in the NFB that programming for the blind/VI is only for the "intelligent" kids. I'm trying to prove that the issue isn't intelligence. It's more support and opportunity. But, that's another issue. Arnold On Nov 12, 2007 11:27 AM, Ken Perry <whistler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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<http://www.student.oulu.fi/%7Evtatila> > > 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 > > -- Arnold http://www.blind411.org http://www.blind411.org/ITCareers/