Re: teaching a child - console or GUI

From: Bruce Roberts (ber_at_bounceitattcanada.xnet)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:44:38 -0400

"Marco van de Voort" <marcov@stack.nl> wrote in message
news:slrncga74c.2ef.marcov@toad.stack.nl...

> Sure. But most involvements changes objectives. (e.g. very high level OOP
> programming etc). In that it's different from natural languages.

I don't agree that this is substantively different from natural languages.
The evolution of natural language follows similar paths. The word compute
today means something very different that it did 200 years ago and embodies
a substantially different view of reality. OOP differs from strictly
procedural languages only in how it models problems, i.e. a different view
of reality.

> And most of those are complicating factors, didactically.

No. I think there is a good argument to made for OOP actually simplifying
problems. Any percieved complexity of OOP is generated by a world view that
is centered on strict procedural programming.

> Yes, but we are talking about people that don't know delphi, sb for who
> all major concepts (OOP, Visual classes, event driven programming etc )
are new.

As is the concept of heap, stack, iteration, and recursion. None of which
are confined to OOP. All programming concepts are new to someone first
learning to program. So there is no real difference in the level of
complexity. Don't confuse OOP with gui. OOP does not inherently include
visual classes or events. Events actually go back into the early days of
computing, although then we called them interrupts. Visual classes are
simply a programming tool intended to make gui programming easier. OOP is
all about how one organizes data and executable statements. Its a way of
organizing solutions to problems. And that methodology is no more simple or
complex than a strictly procedural approach. Its just different. IMO its
currently the best general approach to programmed problem solving. But that
doesn't mean that there are not better general solutions around the corner,
or that there are better particular case problem solving methods.

> Simple sequential programming is much easier to explain.

Cetainly to one who already understands and accepts sequentiality. I would
argue, and this is based on personal experience teaching 1st year students
(some years ago), that people new to programming have few preconceived
notions about the sequentiallity of computers. Often, in fact, they have
difficulty understanding this since people are massively parallel in the way
they process data.

> Then Delphi can be harder to learn than classic pascal. Contrary to
natural
> language, children don't get the current context of a programming language
> "for free"
>
> >> The choice for non-OOP has nnothing to do with "historical". It is a
> >> didactic choice.
> >
> > And for that reason I believe it is very wrong. One's first language has
a
> > huge influence on how one thinks.
>
> That's often said, but I contest that. People tend to tinker away at
first,
> and only start developing structural learning after they made a couple of
> spaghetti programs.

You are generalizing the case of self taught individuals. If one looks at
the way in which formal training is conducted one finds that it is very
structured and students are introduced to concepts in a predetermined manner
intended to embed the programming concepts deemed important by the
instructor.

> Such a statement is based on theory, not on practice. I never observed
such
> a phenomenon.

I first observed the phenomenon in myself. I think a quick perusal of this
or any other ng devoted to programming will quickly establish fact to backup
the theory. When people learn a new programming language, knowing another
one, they think in the earlier language and try to get the new language to
conform to the paradigm of the earlier one. This is not a phenomena that is
only observable in programming. It exists in any language context. In
natural language those learning a new language tend to have difficulty until
they more fully understand the cultural context (programming paradigm) of
the new language. Its fact, not theory.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can a low-level programmer learn OOP?
    ... I have also found some articles profoundly critical of OOP. ... If it does, you'll find it easier, else choose another programming style. ... Starting in 1999 I got back into programming, but the high-level-ness of PC programming and the completely foreign language of OOP repelled me. ... Dynamic languages like Smalltalk, Python or Ruby are much more lightweight in this area, and tend to favor a much more exploratory style - sketch a quick draft on a napkin, start coding, and evolve the design while you're coding. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: OO and Extending (Was: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?)
    ... That greatly depends on the language. ... You have to *show* OOP being better, not merely claim you are smart ... I find at least two problems with OO's approach to "extension without ... It works for systems programming, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: teaching a child - console or GUI
    ... > I don't agree that this is substantively different from natural languages. ... > The evolution of natural language follows similar paths. ... Popular TV shows have the biggest influence on programming languages? ... I think there is a good argument to made for OOP actually simplifying ...
    (comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc)
  • Re: object system...
    ... for that you need machine language. ... isn't even as fast as other systems programming languages. ... Stroustrup's stated design goal was to enable ... all manner of elegance or abstraction can be sacrificed for speed, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: why still use C?
    ... >> learn and work with with the C language, ... > - some people don't want to learn OOP ... can be used with many other programming styles. ... >> have caused him to associate your nonfluency with English ...
    (comp.lang.c)