Kay C Lan wrote:
"If I remember correctly, someone saw red when
Runtime offered to "Teach
Programming in a Day" and that "Learn The Salient
Central Points to Runtime
Revolution Programming in 1 Day" may have been more
accurate.
Are you now suggesting: "Demythologised Programming
in 3 easy st
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Richmond Mathewson
his self-esteem
> went through the roof as I demythologised programming
> in 3 easy steps all thanks to Runtime Revolution!
>
If I remember correctly, someone saw red when Runtime offered to "Teach
Programming in a Day" and that "Learn The
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ken Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> People are more receptive when (a) they are invested in the conversation in
> some way, and (b) are spoken to with concepts that are relevant to their
> current frame of reference. So the first step is trying to find a common
> at least as coping with variables goes. I usually
> start with the "buckets" image, move onto fields
> ("visible buckets") and then try variables ("invisible
> buckets").
For kids (and anyone else, I'd imagine), I've found that it's best to use
real-world metaphors that mean something to them.
Richmond,
We should all be so fortunate as to have such a rewarding
environment. Unlike you, I'm mired in one in which Building
Officials, aware that we can now do much more than in the
past, are requiring the most inane documentation for things
just because they can easily do so - without scratc
François Chaplais wrote:
"I see fields as the poor man's debugger: it let you
see what
happens inside the script."
Better a poor man's debugger than a rich man's bu**er!
Sorry, chaps, couldn't resist that one.
Oddly enough a slightly confused 15 year old came to
see me today, ostensibly about
Le 11 juin 08 à 10:13, Peter Alcibiades a écrit :
Well, there is one advantage of using fields and not variables -
your users
can see those fields chuntering through and incrementing before
their very
eyes. Never underestimate the value of cognitive dissonance. Its
working
hard, so it
Ah... The good old days of 70 hour weeks when we were young and stupid
and we just got our first IBM S360... Jim
On 10-Jun-08, at 2:49 PM, Phil Davis wrote:
Wow - another former PL/1 programmer! I thought I was the only one
left, except at the Rev conference I learned that Robert Cailliau
I tend toward the paper and pencil analogy for variables, paper and
pen for constants.
It's like the machine has a note pad, pen and pencil inside.
That's something they readily use and are familiar with.
Cheers,
Luis.
On 10 Jun 2008, at 20:15, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
Richard Gaskin wro
Well, there is one advantage of using fields and not variables - your users
can see those fields chuntering through and incrementing before their very
eyes. Never underestimate the value of cognitive dissonance. Its working
hard, so it must be worthwhile. The variable is not nearly so satisfyin
Richard Gaskin wrote:
J. Landman Gay wrote:
> Richard, you wrote a great explanation of this on the list some
> time ago. I wonder if you still have it. Something about moving
> things around in the janitor's closet every time you needed to
> get the cleaning fluid or something.
Of all the m
J. Landman Gay wrote:
> Moving data in and out of fields is one of the slowest, most
> inefficient things you can do in Rev, so it's good practice
> to do as little of it as possible. While it is true that today's
> computers are fast, parsing a large field by repeatedly accessing
> and replacing
Richard Gaskin wrote:
If teaching with fields works, by all means keep doing it.
I think I'd start with teaching fields so they can get the concepts
down, but then move pretty quickly to using variables so they learn to
program efficiently. There's no good reason to teach poor programming
Richmond Mathewson:
Richard Gaskin wrote:
"I would agree that what you teach should depend on
where the learner is on Piaget's scale of cognitive
function.
But for adult learners, I usually teach fields for
display and variables
for computation.
Variables play a central role in the art of
p
Richard Gaskin wrote:
"I would agree that what you teach should depend on
where the learner is on Piaget's scale of cognitive
function.
But for adult learners, I usually teach fields for
display and variables
for computation.
Variables play a central role in the art of
programming. One could
Wow - another former PL/1 programmer! I thought I was the only one left,
except at the Rev conference I learned that Robert Cailliau also used it
in earlier days.
Phil Davis
Jim Carwardine wrote:
Thanks, guys... Shame on me for using fields instead of variables. I
knew that one. That is an
Hi Richmond,
With the speed we have today, I think I can safely say that
there is no caveat against using fields; particularly with very
simple references to them; but, when you start parsing their
contents, then you'll probably want to be doing it using vars.
IMHO,
Joe Wilkins
On Jun 10, 2008
Richmond Mathewson wrote:
Is there anything INTRINSICALLY wrong with using
fields instead of variables ?
This looks like whether one wants to eat one's dinner
the British way (i.e. with an upside-down fork and cut
it up as you go along) or the North-American way (cut
everything up first and then
Is there anything INTRINSICALLY wrong with using
fields instead of variables ?
This looks like whether one wants to eat one's dinner
the British way (i.e. with an upside-down fork and cut
it up as you go along) or the North-American way (cut
everything up first and then eat it with the fork).
Adm
Thanks, guys... Shame on me for using fields instead of variables. I
knew that one. That is an original 1987 HC self-learning (that
reflects my PL1 days in the early 70's believe it or not) that I have
fought ever since.
Now, to rewrite and relearn... Jim
On 10-Jun-08, at 12:55 PM, Jim A
20 matches
Mail list logo