as much as I like my VB, I would say probably ruby, due to the fact that visual basic does not teach good habits, it does a bit too much for you and leaves you expecting all other languages to be in a nice neat IDE, and auto format your code for you. for someone learning to program for the fun of it, to make little things fast, or not needing the intricacies of "how it does it"of the larger languages then fine, go with VB, but ruby would probably be better for the career minded, and beginners so they get the mass of learning the hand written code that makes the text box you want to put there work. and though it may be tougher, I say go ahead with java for the secondary language, since its so on the market now a days. regards, inthane . For Blind Programming assistance, Information, Useful Programs, and Links to Jamal Mazrui's Text tutorial packages and Applications, visit me at: http://grabbag.alacorncomputer.com . to be able to view a simple programming project in several programming languages, visit the Fruit basket demo site at: http://fruitbasketdemo.alacorncomputer.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Arnold Bailey To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:19 AM Subject: 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 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/