RE: BlindConfidential: Learning to Program for the Blind
- From: james.homme@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:53:44 -0500
Hi,
I'm one of them.
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
"Chris Hofstader"
<chris.hofstader@
knology.net> To
Sent by: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
programmingblind- cc
bounce@freelists.
org Subject
RE: BlindConfidential: Learning to
Program for the Blind
11/14/2007 08:36
AM
Please respond to
programmingblind@
freelists.org
I have also found that students who test poorly for an aptitude in
mathematics often get directed away from programming but, at the same time,
I know a lot of former musicians who program but never did well in math
class.
-----Original Message-----
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob J.
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:31 PM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: BlindConfidential: Learning to Program for the Blind
I agree with Jim that OO is far too demanding for simple programming
projects. I also believe that many people who could have become good
programmers were disuaded from programming because they attempted to enter
into it at too high a level. Simple, procedural languages such as BASIC
allow the novice to get exposure to the fundamental mechanics of
programming
and then, if they enjoy that, they can move on to more sophisticated
languages and projects. In short, jumping in at too high a level is a
mistake!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: <james.homme@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:28 AM
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
__________ NOD32 2653 (20071112) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
__________
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:
