Re: BlindConfidential: Learning to Program for the Blind

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
> http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
>
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at
> http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
>


-- 
Arnold
http://www.blind411.org
http://www.blind411.org/ITCareers/

Other related posts: