Well.. my experience as a newby in Smalltalk was simple. because he had a
strong theoretical base of object-oriented programming. There he is the
center of the question.. the Paradigm..
Esteban Lorenzano and JJ Evangelista taught me seaside in 2 hours, And
deployed the first application in 3 days :)
Unfortunately, not many universities, and why not, business .. OOP is
used,they only a mixture of classes with large procedural methods.
Well, key success feature of Java, to introduce in the market was this.. you
can do something programming.. prodecural old fashion..
May be, the to mass is make "Wrong" example and Step by Step..Driving back
to learning the proper OOP programming.
Introduce common element in the main stream example might be a way too.
The tipical wizard to generata a CRUD from database ("puaj... i feel
sick").. is a good think to make newby more confotable with the enviroment
and language.
Best.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <bsch...@anest.ufl.edu>wrote:
> On the permanent noob front: I have years of experience as a beginning
> skier. I like it that way: no broken bones. Besides, I don't get to do it
> often enough to develop an attitude about it.
>
> As for Smalltalk in general, I have pointed new users to the Digitalk
> tutorials, telling them to stop when they reach the graphics, after which I
> started them into specific projects with lots of mentoring until they "got
> it."
>
> Visual Basic, PHP, Java, any # language except maybe S#, R (statistics),
> etc., all try to be easy to use. Hello world is a mere line or two, and
> teaches NOTHING. Understanding of Smalltalk comes a little slowly, but the
> rewards are immense (as you all know). Visual Basic has syntax for
> everything one might want to do; once dug out of documentation or a forum
> post, the trick of the day might not be useful for much else. Everything is
> easy: learning to do anything is a daunting task. The things to be learned
> about Smalltalk are comparatively few and invariably widely applicable;
> there are some specialized techniques (FFI, finalization), but very few
> tricks.
>
> Smalltalk is (mostly) consistent throughout, and its inconsistencies
> (Character, SmallInteger, #ifTrue:ifFalse:, MetaClass) are hidden fairly
> well and, with hindsight, make sense IMHO. Exception handling is new since
> Smalltalk 80, it is done wonderfully and fits with Smalltalk style. The
> newbie sees some "syntax" - we see #on:do: sent to a block, note the
> elegance, and get back to work. Traits are new and welcome. I am not
> saying that we can't extend the system; I think we should be careful about
> changing the language. Does Alan still have that piece of paper with the
> original specification?
>
> Pharo can use some work, of course. I am still overwhelmed when I begin to
> create a GUI for something, probably because I have written only two or
> three of them. I have some scraps of code that are learning toward an MVP
> framework. Just this past week, I encountered some communications code
> (non-graphical) that needed an aspect value adapter. I wrote a simple one,
> which is another piece of that puzzle.
>
> Things worth learning take effort. I doubt we can get around that. We can
> offer good tutorials, and where the tutorials look scruffy, make the code
> better.
>
> Bill
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr [
> pharo-project-boun...@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Germán Arduino [
> gardu...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:29 AM
> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Vision
>
> I understand the sense of your words.
>
> And I agree with the need of a more easy to understand/extend
> system......I think that is a thing we need in these days, may be with
> some helper tools, I don't know, but I hear a lot of times people
> saying "No, I had a look to (put here Squeak/Pharo/Dolphin/other
> flavour) but was not able of develop anything".
>
> I know most of this sensation has to do with knowledgment about OO
> technology, but still if we can have a lower intro barrier, may be
> better for a lot of people (myself included of course.... in topics as
> .... Morphic :) ).
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Another forever newbie: Germán :)
>
>
> 2011/1/29 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr>:
> > Hi guys
> >
> > Some days ago we were chatting with igor and he made an interesting
> remark about a kind of hidden philosophy
> > behind pharo: the idea that we systematically want to make the system
> better.
> > In fact I realized that what we are doing is to make a system nice,
> robust and powerful so that everybody can use
> > to realize their goals. But we want to have a system where not only smart
> guys can manage to do something with it but also
> > less talented people like me (I know that some of you will say but stef
> you are good, I'm a newbie in a lot of domains but
> > I learn fast if I can get a chance to avoid to bump on the walls). I want
> a system that let me learn from itself.
> > I think that lot of things fall naturally in place from this vision
> (documentation, oo practices - not having car inheriting from wheel, tests
> > comments, adequate abstractions, modularity). I want a system that
> everybody can nicely build his own software.
> > So in short I want pharo to be like a nice garden with greenhouses for
> building new garden with tools versus a jungle where
> > only skilled adventurers can make it through.
> >
> > Stef
> >
>
>
>
