Re: BlindConfidential: Learning to Program for the Blind
- From: james.homme@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:21:29 -0500
Hi,
Sorry, but we are starting to drift a bit with this post. Not picking on
anyone particularly. I just happened to see this one.
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
"Nimer Jaber"
<nimerjaber1@gmai
l.com> To
Sent by: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
programmingblind- cc
bounce@freelists.
org Subject
Re: BlindConfidential: Learning to
Program for the Blind
11/12/2007 02:37
PM
Please respond to
programmingblind@
freelists.org
Wow! I was under the impression that NFB's philosophy was such that a
blind individual could acchieve anything with the right equipment and
training and that blindness wasn't as much a disability but a
hindrance and a nuissance.
Antyway...
On 11/12/07, Arnold Bailey <arnoldbail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/
>
__________
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:
