# Getting my sister to learn programming
**URL:** https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260
**Category:** ruby-talk
**Created:** [11 February 2007 12:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260 "2007-02-11T12:56:25Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)
#### Post date: [11 February 2007 12:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/1 "2007-02-11T12:56:25Z")
Hello fellow Rubyists,
I've just come back from a trip home\* and was surprised to find my sister
very enthusiastic about programming and wanting to continue our lessons.
\* Yes, a trip home. I spend most of my life in the dorms of the Israeli
Institute of Technology (BTW, I've heard of other Rubyists there. Would a
RUG be appropriate?)
To those not familiar with the story (previously discussed here), I've tried
teaching my 13-year-old sister programming more than twice. At first, I used
C and tried to get her to create text adventure games as a way to interest
her. It simply didn't work.
Her English isn't perfect and combined with the C syntax and extra commands
needed to invoke an editor, gcc and the program, it was too much for her to
remember at once and she just didn't like it.
After two or three times I gave up, but lately I gave it one more try, this
time not touching a computer:
I took a sheet of A4 squared paper and an orange pen (and a ruler,
although I later found no use for it) and taught her turtle graphics in
HEBREW, serving myself as a substitute for an interpreter.
It took about half an hour for her to grasp variables, loops and control
structures.
We started to talk about programming theory, now that she had enough
theory, and I was amazed to hear her suggesting the abstraction of
functions.
She had to sleep and I had to leave.
A month later, I come back home and find her enthusiastic to learn more.
But now I'm confused over my head with the dilemma of what to teach her
next:
\* C has proven to be a no-go, although it's what I myself wish I'd have
learned first.
\* Pascal, C++/Java are crossed out for personal opinion.
\* Lisp would be a great environment in which to build on the idea of
functions as the universal abstraction (and a very very simple syntax is a
huge pro), but reverse-polish is yet one more thing to confuse her with, and
I'm not sure what environment to use within Lisp (some GUI library? a
turtle-graphics environment? pure text?) and what libraries exist to support
these in ways that would be easy for her to learn.
\* Squeak seems like a really great thing to teach, and Smalltalk a great
language (simple syntax and ideas), but I can't seem to do useful things in
Squeak myself (perhaps I didn't find the good resources? If so, could
someone point me to them?)
\* Other languages people seem to love and I don't know might include one
more befitting (perhaps Haskell? ML?)
\* I can't find any advantage to Python over Ruby
\* I'm considering LOGO, esp. after browsing through this text:
[http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v1-toc2.html](http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v1-toc2.html)
My only problem is with interaction-with-the-outside-world.
\* I love Ruby and it is the language I would LIKE to teach, but I have a
few doubts:
\> Discoverability would be greatly diminished by her beginners' English
\> Ruby has a LOT of syntax, which would confuse her
\> Lisp and Smalltalk have very simple models underlying code
interpretation, which make it very easy to grasp how programs are executed.
Lisp has the same model I've already explained to her, and Smalltalk's would
be really simple to explain. Ruby has a very complicated model (well,
everything is an object or a message, but each certain thing maps to an
object or a message in a different way to make it the most convenient to
use.More to the point, not everything LOOKS like an object or a message, and
most things are intentionally disguised to look more like Algol. M-Exps,
anyone? 馃槢 ) that it would be REALLY hard for me to explain to her. Thus,
I'm afraid, I won't be able to teach her ALL of Ruby (e.g. how to
metaprogram, how to read code that uses metaprogramming) and she will be
left knowing only half a language (When I learned Ruby I've had familiarity
with how computers execute code on all levels, and thus intuitively
understanding how ruby code is interpreted was simple, but when I think
about it, it's very complicated for someone who isn't used to think like a
computer)
\> Ruby culture, I think, is a lot about making things a programmer
already knows easier to use (e.g. \_why's Camping or Rails, both of which let
you write Ruby code that translates almost linearly to many other languages
and protocols used in Web Development)
I'm posting this to the Ruby list, of all lists, for a few reasons:
\* I really hope to get responses that convince me to use Ruby
\* Ruby guys know their stuff and aren't too religious
\* I just like this list
\* This can spawn an interesting discussion on teaching programming to
beginners, esp. those who aren't fluent in English
So, what do you think? What language should I teach her, and what should I
teach her to do with it first?
I guess I should state my intentions first, so here they are:
\* I want it to always stay interesting and intellectually stimulating for
her. I want her to want to discover new things and be able to (this also
speaks of documentation. QBASIC, my first language, had the best
documentation-in-IDE I've ever used, since it was so small and F1 would get
you to what you wanted, always, with examples. But QBASIC had an advantage
that what I teach will not have: it didn't need to interact with the outside
world)
\* I want her to be able to continue on her own as quick as possible
\* I want her to emphasize on abstraction as a means of solving problems
\* I want her to be able to interact with the outside world
Can't wait to hear back,
Aur Saraf
---
### Author:  [@Mushfeq\_Khan](https://rubytalk.org/u/Mushfeq_Khan)
#### Post date: [11 February 2007 15:01 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/2 "2007-02-11T15:01:33Z")
> \* Squeak seems like a really great thing to teach, and Smalltalk a great
> language (simple syntax and ideas), but I can't seem to do useful things
> in
> Squeak myself (perhaps I didn't find the good resources? If so, could
> someone point me to them?)
There's a book out that uses Squeak as an introduction to programming:
[http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=444](http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=444)
I've leafed through it a little and it looked very cool. Professor Ducasse
also maintains a page with free online editions of a lot of classic
Smalltalk books at:
[http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html](http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html)
Mushfeq.
---
### Author:  [@M\_Edward\_Ed\_Borasky1](https://rubytalk.org/u/M_Edward_Ed_Borasky1)
#### Post date: [11 February 2007 17:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/3 "2007-02-11T17:51:30Z")
SonOfLilit wrote:
> But now I'm confused over my head with the dilemma of what to teach her
> next:
>
> \* Lisp would be a great environment in which to build on the idea of
> functions as the universal abstraction (and a very very simple syntax is a
> huge pro), but reverse-polish is yet one more thing to confuse her with, and
> I'm not sure what environment to use within Lisp (some GUI library? a
> turtle-graphics environment? pure text?) and what libraries exist to support
> these in ways that would be easy for her to learn.
If you don't mind switching from Lisp to Scheme, there are lots of great resources. Scheme is pretty much the ultimate pedagogical/academic language. I don't know what, if anything, is available in Hebrew, but the wealth of information in English on Scheme and the underlying computer science is phenomenal. "The Little Schemer" is one way to get started. "drscheme" from PLT is another. I'd personally go with "drscheme"; I found "The Little Schemer" hard to read. Check out [http://www.plt-scheme.org/](http://www.plt-scheme.org/)
> I'm posting this to the Ruby list, of all lists, for a few reasons:
> \* I really hope to get responses that convince me to use Ruby
> \* Ruby guys know their stuff and aren't too religious
> \* I just like this list
> \* This can spawn an interesting discussion on teaching programming to
> beginners, esp. those who aren't fluent in English
>
> So, what do you think? What language should I teach her, and what should I
> teach her to do with it first?
Well ... I guess if you're talking about programming languages, I'd pick Scheme/Lisp or Ruby. But the natural language issue -- English vs. Hebrew -- is obviously a big factor here. You've mentioned it enough times that perhaps you should be teaching her English as well as programming. One way to ease into that might be to find some open source natural language processing software and break it up into small pieces. The open source world seems to me to be way ahead of the commercial world in natural language processing. It's not my area of expertise, but I'm pretty sure there's quite a bit of natural language processing software written in Lisp, if not Scheme, and there are also some things in Ruby.
I'd stay away from "toy" languages like Logo, and I'd stay away from Squeak. As far as I can tell she's smart enough to work in a real language -- Logo just \*isn't\* a real language. It's designed for kids and she'll outgrow it quickly. In fact, I'm guessing she already \*has\* outgrown it! And Squeak is, as you've noticed, just plain bizarre. I've been programming since ... well, let's just say you had to be a graduate student to get your hands on a machine with core memory and solid-state logic. 馃檪 And I found Squeak so counter-intuitive that I gave up on it after a week. Smalltalk is a wonderful language, but Squeak is just plain weird.
> **路路路**
>
> --
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
> [http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/](http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/)
>
> If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
---
### Author:  [@Morton\_Goldberg](https://rubytalk.org/u/Morton_Goldberg)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 00:42 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/4 "2007-02-12T00:42:19Z")
> Hello fellow Rubyists,
>
> I've just come back from a trip home\* and was surprised to find my sister
> very enthusiastic about programming and wanting to continue our lessons.
...
> I guess I should state my intentions first, so here they are:
> \* I want it to always stay interesting and intellectually stimulating for
> her. I want her to want to discover new things and be able to (this also
> speaks of documentation. QBASIC, my first language, had the best
> documentation-in-IDE I've ever used, since it was so small and F1 would get
> you to what you wanted, always, with examples. But QBASIC had an advantage
> that what I teach will not have: it didn't need to interact with the outside
> world)
> \* I want her to be able to continue on her own as quick as possible
> \* I want her to emphasize on abstraction as a means of solving problems
> \* I want her to be able to interact with the outside world
I think Logo is great as a first computer language. There are some Logos available today that let one do some really neat stuff. They usually have really good documentation written by people who really understand the needs of beginning programmers. Google "Brian Harvey +Logo".
I also think Ruby with turtle graphics added would be good way to start. We recently did a Ruby Quiz where the problem was to add turtle graphics to Ruby. I've found that with this add-on it's easy to translate Logo code into Ruby. If you would like to try it, I'll send you the complete Ruby turtle graphics kit with a bunch of Logo programs I've translated into Ruby (direct to your e-mail address -- its too much to post here).
One advantage of Ruby with turtle graphics is that after the initial lessons with the turtle, you can go off into more advanced programming in any direction you want. The main disadvantage is that, compared to Logo, there is relatively little in documentation/tutorials for entry-level programmers.
Regards, Morton
> **路路路**
>
> On Feb 11, 2007, at 7:56 AM, SonOfLilit wrote:
---
### Author:  [@Vladimir\_Konrad2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Vladimir_Konrad2)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 10:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/5 "2007-02-12T10:49:20Z")
i would start with scheme (drscheme environment):
9 year old was able to start programming:
[http://www.adelphi.edu/sbloch/class/hs/testimonials/prabhakar.shtml](http://www.adelphi.edu/sbloch/class/hs/testimonials/prabhakar.shtml)
[http://www.teach-scheme.org/](http://www.teach-scheme.org/)
[http://www.htdp.org/](http://www.htdp.org/)
the reason being that the "syntax" of scheme is so regular and easy to
pick up + drscheme environment was designed with teaching in mind. once
she knows the concepts, she can move to something else (like ruby).
vlad
ps:
> **路路路**
>
> --
> Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/](http://www.ruby-forum.com/).
---
### Author:  [@Suraj\_Kurapati1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Suraj_Kurapati1)
#### Post date: [13 February 2007 20:15 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/6 "2007-02-13T20:15:23Z")
SonOfLilit wrote:
> I've just come back from a trip home\* and was surprised to find my
> sister very enthusiastic about programming and wanting to continue our lessons.
>
> I'm confused over my head with the dilemma of what to teach her next:
How about Loro?
[http://loro.sourceforge.net/z/?About](http://loro.sourceforge.net/z/?About)
Loro is an open system intended to help beginners learn programming. It
uses its own programming language and includes an integrated development
environment system focused on first-year students. The language features
a "specify, then implement" methodology; you have to specify a task
before writing any implementation (algorithm). Specification is an
explict, compilable construction to make a contract between suppliers
and clients, and can be implemented in either Loro or Java (via
BeanShell). The IDE features support for test-driven developing, syntax
highlighting, and automatic HTML documentation generation and
visualization.
The Loro Programming System has been designed from the grounds up under
the following principles: 1) "program to an interface, not an
implementation" (GoF, 1995); 2) Design by Contract; and 3) Test driven
development.
> **路路路**
>
> --
> Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C).
---
### Author:  [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)
#### Post date: [11 February 2007 15:12 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/7 "2007-02-11T15:12:50Z")
Yes, but I want to teach her an environment where if she comes to me and
wants to program, say, a GUI, or a game, or a website, I can show her how.
With Squeak, I haven't figured out the only simple task I've ever tried to.
That isn't a good sign...
Aur Saraf
> **路路路**
>
> On 2/11/07, Mushfeq Khan \ wrote:
>
> > \>
> > \> \* Squeak seems like a really great thing to teach, and Smalltalk a
> > great
> > \> language (simple syntax and ideas), but I can't seem to do useful things
> > \> in
> > \> Squeak myself (perhaps I didn't find the good resources? If so, could
> > \> someone point me to them?)
> > \>
> >
> > There's a book out that uses Squeak as an introduction to programming:
> >
> > [http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=444](http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=444)
> >
> > I've leafed through it a little and it looked very cool. Professor Ducasse
> > also maintains a page with free online editions of a lot of classic
> > Smalltalk books at:
> >
> > [http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html](http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html)
> >
> > Mushfeq.
---
### Author:  [@Brian\_Candler](https://rubytalk.org/u/Brian_Candler)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 08:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/8 "2007-02-12T08:59:37Z")
How about sticking it up on rubyforge?
I asked exactly the same question a couple of years ago,
[http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/138245](http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/138245)
A reply pointed to
[http://onestepback.org/packages/rubyturtles/](http://onestepback.org/packages/rubyturtles/)
but I've not tried it.
The advantages I can see in teaching Ruby are that it's a language you can
do real work in; it's easy to install; and it's sufficiently "normal" that
normal people don't have to work hard to read your code (unlike, say, LISP)
At least the basic syntax is clean. I know there are skeletons lying in the
cupboard for the more advanced Rubyist to trip over, but by that stage
they're probably hooked anyway 馃檪
Cheers,
Brian.
> **路路路**
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:42:19AM +0900, Morton Goldberg wrote:
>
> > I also think Ruby with turtle graphics added would be good way to
> > start. We recently did a Ruby Quiz where the problem was to add
> > turtle graphics to Ruby. I've found that with this add-on it's easy
> > to translate Logo code into Ruby. If you would like to try it, I'll
> > send you the complete Ruby turtle graphics kit with a bunch of Logo
> > programs I've translated into Ruby (direct to your e-mail address --
> > its too much to post here).
---
### Author:  [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 12:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/9 "2007-02-12T12:10:59Z")
> If you don't mind switching from Lisp to Scheme, there are lots of great
> resources. Scheme is pretty much the ultimate pedagogical/academic
> language. I don't know what, if anything, is available in Hebrew, but
> the wealth of information in English on Scheme and the underlying
> computer science is phenomenal. "The Little Schemer" is one way to get
> started. "drscheme" from PLT is another. I'd personally go with
> "drscheme"; I found "The Little Schemer" hard to read. Check out
> [http://www.plt-scheme.org/](http://www.plt-scheme.org/)
I was talking about the Lisp FAMILY, of course, so scheme is included.
I would have gone for DrScheme, I think, as it is the only sane choice I
know except for emacs+SLIME - and as much as I like this one, I don't think
my sister will.
Well ... I guess if you're talking about programming languages, I'd pick
> Scheme/Lisp or Ruby. But the natural language issue -- English vs.
> Hebrew -- is obviously a big factor here. You've mentioned it enough
> times that perhaps you should be teaching her English as well as
> programming. One way to ease into that might be to find some open source
> natural language processing software and break it up into small pieces.
> The open source world seems to me to be way ahead of the commercial
> world in natural language processing. It's not my area of expertise, but
> I'm pretty sure there's quite a bit of natural language processing
> software written in Lisp, if not Scheme, and there are also some things
> in Ruby.
Getting her to learn English is part of the fun. Well, her English is OK on
a basic language - she can have a conversation in English and could
eventually understand every text I throw at her, I think (school ruined it a
bit - you know how schools work). But she'd have difficulty studying from an
English book / tutorial, and English names in APIs wouldn't feel natural to
her, so she'd have to memorize every word. That's why I said Ruby's
advantage of very clear and obvious names would be lost.
I'd stay away from "toy" languages like Logo, and I'd stay away from
> Squeak. As far as I can tell she's smart enough to work in a real
> language -- Logo just \*isn't\* a real language. It's designed for kids
> and she'll outgrow it quickly. In fact, I'm guessing she already \*has\*
> outgrown it! And Squeak is, as you've noticed, just plain bizarre. I've
> been programming since ... well, let's just say you had to be a graduate
> student to get your hands on a machine with core memory and solid-state
> logic. 馃檪 And I found Squeak so counter-intuitive that I gave up on it
> after a week. Smalltalk is a wonderful language, but Squeak is just
> plain weird.
Logo seems quite real to me (I'm talking about Brian Harvey's UCBLogo). He
shows how to do some very nifty things in his books about it, like for
example a BASIC to Logo translator:
[http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v2ch6/basic.html](http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v2ch6/basic.html)
As a matter of fact, Logo (a language I was first taught to "use" for turtle
graphics at third grade but totally forgot about and rediscovered today as
an experienced programmer) seems to me like having a relationship with Lisp
like that of Ruby with Smalltalk: Take the underlying engine and make it
look like simple English. I especially like the keyword "to" used for
function definition, as in "to draw a triangle, repeat three times doing
this and that".
If only it had a FFI, I'd have no doubts and teach her Logo.
Without one, I'm afraid to say it's a VERY limited language (AFAIK it
doesn't have PEEK and POKE, BASIC's FFI in the times of ASM reign).
That leaves Ruby or Scheme.
Ruby is more natural, Scheme is simpler. Part of Ruby's "natural" advantage
is lost because of language mismatch. Ruby's libraries are allowed to have
simpler APIs, but the cost is in the complication of implementing such APIs.
I know Ruby far better than Scheme (have only played a bit with the latter).
What do you think?
> **路路路**
>
> On 2/11/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky \ wrote:
---
### Author:  [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)
#### Post date: [13 February 2007 20:21 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/10 "2007-02-13T20:21:09Z")
Seems like exactly something to KILL the spark that I am so trying to
preserve...
> **路路路**
>
> On 2/13/07, Suraj Kurapati \ wrote:
>
> > SonOfLilit wrote:
> > \> I've just come back from a trip home\* and was surprised to find my
> > \> sister very enthusiastic about programming and wanting to continue our
> > lessons.
> > \>
> > \> I'm confused over my head with the dilemma of what to teach her next:
> >
> > How about Loro?
> >
> > [http://loro.sourceforge.net/z/?About](http://loro.sourceforge.net/z/?About)
> >
> > Loro is an open system intended to help beginners learn programming. It
> > uses its own programming language and includes an integrated development
> > environment system focused on first-year students. The language features
> > a "specify, then implement" methodology; you have to specify a task
> > before writing any implementation (algorithm). Specification is an
> > explict, compilable construction to make a contract between suppliers
> > and clients, and can be implemented in either Loro or Java (via
> > BeanShell). The IDE features support for test-driven developing, syntax
> > highlighting, and automatic HTML documentation generation and
> > visualization.
> >
> > The Loro Programming System has been designed from the grounds up under
> > the following principles: 1) "program to an interface, not an
> > implementation" (GoF, 1995); 2) Design by Contract; and 3) Test driven
> > development.
> >
> > --
> > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C).
---
### Author:  [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)
#### Post date: [11 February 2007 15:18 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/11 "2007-02-11T15:18:02Z")
By the way, this is looking REALLY great:
> **[Wikipedia logos: Vector logos free download. Logowiki.net](https://logowiki.net/)**
>
> Wikipedia of logos
It's... It's like TryRuby with graphics!
No installation is a huge advantage if I want to teach her remotely.
I think I'll postpone my decision and teach the first few lessons here, and
then ask her what kind of thing she would like to create and choose by her
answer.
Still, until I start I am very open to suggestions.
Aur Saraf
> **路路路**
>
> On 2/11/07, SonOfLilit \ wrote:
>
> > Yes, but I want to teach her an environment where if she comes to me and
> > wants to program, say, a GUI, or a game, or a website, I can show her how.
> >
> > With Squeak, I haven't figured out the only simple task I've ever tried
> > to.
> >
> > That isn't a good sign...
> >
> > Aur Saraf
> >
> > On 2/11/07, Mushfeq Khan \ wrote:
> > \>
> > \> \>
> > \> \> \* Squeak seems like a really great thing to teach, and Smalltalk a
> > \> great
> > \> \> language (simple syntax and ideas), but I can't seem to do useful
> > \> things
> > \> \> in
> > \> \> Squeak myself (perhaps I didn't find the good resources? If so, could
> > \> \> someone point me to them?)
> > \> \>
> > \>
> > \> There's a book out that uses Squeak as an introduction to programming:
> > \>
> > \> [http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=444](http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=444)
> > \>
> > \> I've leafed through it a little and it looked very cool. Professor
> > \> Ducasse
> > \> also maintains a page with free online editions of a lot of classic
> > \> Smalltalk books at:
> > \>
> > \> [http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html<http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html>](http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html<http://www.iam.unibe.ch/%7Educasse/FreeBooks.html>);
> > \>
> > \> Mushfeq.
> > \>
---
### Author:  [@Benjohn\_Barnes](https://rubytalk.org/u/Benjohn_Barnes)
#### Post date: [11 February 2007 21:55 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/12 "2007-02-11T21:55:31Z")
Do you have to pick one language? When people decide to write a game, or GUI or website, they use different languages, generally. So why not pick the right tools for the job, and encourage her to do the same.
I think you did excellently starting with Logo. Maybe you should teach her a bit more of that, and actually get her doing graphics on her own. I'd favour languages with a low barrier before results - that's what I favour in work too. Logo is good for that in the right domain. Ruby is good in others. c has a few places too. Excel can be pretty cool for learning, even.
Perhaps learning several languages can be part of the fun. I don't think it'll make the task harder either. It's more likely to be easy because she'll be seeing the same concept from different points of views and settings.
Good luck 馃檪
Cheers,
Benj
> **路路路**
>
> On 11 Feb 2007, at 15:12, SonOfLilit wrote:
>
> > Yes, but I want to teach her an environment where if she comes to me and
> > wants to program, say, a GUI, or a game, or a website, I can show her how.
> >
> > With Squeak, I haven't figured out the only simple task I've ever tried to.
> >
> > That isn't a good sign...
---
### Author:  [@Brian\_Candler](https://rubytalk.org/u/Brian_Candler)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 09:36 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/13 "2007-02-12T09:36:56Z")
I've tried it now. It works exactly how I was hoping:
$ irb1.8 -rtkturtle
irb(main):001:0\> include TurtleGraphics
=\> Object
irb(main):002:0\> fred = Turtle.new
=\> Turtle(0,[0,0])
irb(main):003:0\> fred.pendown
=\> nil
irb(main):004:0\> 3.times { fred.forward 100; fred.turn 120 }
=\> 3
The included examples all work, although the test suite generates a few
parser warnings (possibly meaning it was written for ruby 1.6)
However I love the following stanza from testturtle.rb:
require 'mock'
require 'turtle'
Nice one Jim 馃檪
Regards,
Brian.
> **路路路**
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 08:58:41AM +0000, Brian Candler wrote:
>
> > A reply pointed to
> > [http://onestepback.org/packages/rubyturtles/](http://onestepback.org/packages/rubyturtles/)
---
### Author:  [@M\_Edward\_Ed\_Borasky1](https://rubytalk.org/u/M_Edward_Ed_Borasky1)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 14:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/14 "2007-02-12T14:56:25Z")
SonOfLilit wrote:
> I was talking about the Lisp FAMILY, of course, so scheme is included.
>
> I would have gone for DrScheme, I think, as it is the only sane choice I
> know except for emacs+SLIME - and as much as I like this one, I don't think
> my sister will.
Well ... yes, but there are clear differences in the popularity of Common Lisp and Scheme. There is a lot of real-world software written in Common Lisp. Scheme, on the other hand, is primarily a pedagogical language. The most common non-pedagogical use for Scheme is as a "scripting language" for tools like TeXmacs. And that is most often done using the Guile implementation.
> Logo seems quite real to me (I'm talking about Brian Harvey's UCBLogo). He
> shows how to do some very nifty things in his books about it, like for
> example a BASIC to Logo translator:
> [Computer Science Logo Style vol 2 ch 6: Example: BASIC Compiler](http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v2ch6/basic.html)
>
> As a matter of fact, Logo (a language I was first taught to "use" for turtle
> graphics at third grade but totally forgot about and rediscovered today as
> an experienced programmer) seems to me like having a relationship with Lisp
> like that of Ruby with Smalltalk: Take the underlying engine and make it
> look like simple English. I especially like the keyword "to" used for
> function definition, as in "to draw a triangle, repeat three times doing
> this and that".
>
> If only it had a FFI, I'd have no doubts and teach her Logo.
>
> Without one, I'm afraid to say it's a VERY limited language (AFAIK it
> doesn't have PEEK and POKE, BASIC's FFI in the times of ASM reign).
What is it about MIT and wanting to build languages and computers for children? 馃檪 Seriously, though, I started programming for a living when APL was a gleam in someone's eye and Lisp 1.5 was the most advanced functional language you could actually get your hands on. My programming "childhood" was spent in the FORTRAN and macro-assembler world. I was sad to see Lisp "dumbed down to Logo for kids" and FORTRAN "dumbed down to BASIC for Dartmouth undergraduates". The other side of that coin, though, is that I was also sad to see the first really high quality computer for kids, the TI 99/4, die.
My point remains that programming students who will go on to become programmers or electrical engineers or computer scientists or applied mathematicians or software engineers quickly outgrow things like Logo and Dartmouth BASIC.
> That leaves Ruby or Scheme.
>
> Ruby is more natural, Scheme is simpler. Part of Ruby's "natural" advantage
> is lost because of language mismatch. Ruby's libraries are allowed to have
> simpler APIs, but the cost is in the complication of implementing such APIs.
> I know Ruby far better than Scheme (have only played a bit with the latter).
>
> What do you think?
Well ... despite the obvious pedagogical nature of Scheme in general and Dr. Scheme in particular, I'm leaning towards Ruby unless the goal is to prepare her for an academic career or something similar. Scheme isn't much used by professional programmers, and it isn't growing in popularity relative to other languages. Ruby, on the other hand, \*is\* growing in popularity and can do more things without having to build them from the ground up.
One final note -- perhaps you can persuade Chris Pine and the good folks at Pragmatic Programmers that a Hebrew translation of "Learn to Program" is a good idea. Why should all the good Ruby books be in Japanese and English only?
> **路路路**
>
> --
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
> [http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/](http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/)
>
> If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
---
### Author:  [@Morton\_Goldberg](https://rubytalk.org/u/Morton_Goldberg)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 19:39 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/15 "2007-02-12T19:39:36Z")
Here are few reasons why not:
1. It's already available (except for some of my Logo translations) from Ruby Quiz.
2. I haven't the slightest clue on how to put something on rubyforge.
3. My very limited understanding of rubyforge is that if I post there, I become responsible for maintaining what I post. I can't do that with the turtle graphics kit because it's only partly my code.
Regards, Morton
P.S. It Ruby Quiz 104. The url is \<[http://www.rubyquiz.com/index.html>\](http://www.rubyquiz.com/index.html>%5C).
> **路路路**
>
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Brian Candler wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:42:19AM +0900, Morton Goldberg wrote:
> >
> > > I also think Ruby with turtle graphics added would be good way to
> > > start. We recently did a Ruby Quiz where the problem was to add
> > > turtle graphics to Ruby. I've found that with this add-on it's easy
> > > to translate Logo code into Ruby. If you would like to try it, I'll
> > > send you the complete Ruby turtle graphics kit with a bunch of Logo
> > > programs I've translated into Ruby (direct to your e-mail address --
> > > its too much to post here).
> >
> > How about sticking it up on rubyforge?
---
### Author:  [@Mushfeq\_Khan](https://rubytalk.org/u/Mushfeq_Khan)
#### Post date: [15 February 2007 03:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/16 "2007-02-15T03:16:08Z")
You should teach her Javascript. I'm serious.
You get an IDE that she's probably already comfortable with, and the
immediacy of getting cool things to show up in webpages. It's not a very
conventional introduction to programming I know, but that's all the more
reason to try it!
Mushfeq.
> **路路路**
>
> On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit \ wrote:
>
> > Seems like exactly something to KILL the spark that I am so trying to
> > preserve...
> >
> > On 2/13/07, Suraj Kurapati \ wrote:
> > \>
> > \> SonOfLilit wrote:
> > \> \> I've just come back from a trip home\* and was surprised to find my
> > \> \> sister very enthusiastic about programming and wanting to continue our
> > \> lessons.
> > \> \>
> > \> \> I'm confused over my head with the dilemma of what to teach her next:
> > \>
> > \> How about Loro?
> > \>
> > \> [http://loro.sourceforge.net/z/?About](http://loro.sourceforge.net/z/?About)
> > \>
> > \> Loro is an open system intended to help beginners learn programming. It
> > \> uses its own programming language and includes an integrated development
> > \> environment system focused on first-year students. The language features
> > \> a "specify, then implement" methodology; you have to specify a task
> > \> before writing any implementation (algorithm). Specification is an
> > \> explict, compilable construction to make a contract between suppliers
> > \> and clients, and can be implemented in either Loro or Java (via
> > \> BeanShell). The IDE features support for test-driven developing, syntax
> > \> highlighting, and automatic HTML documentation generation and
> > \> visualization.
> > \>
> > \> The Loro Programming System has been designed from the grounds up under
> > \> the following principles: 1) "program to an interface, not an
> > \> implementation" (GoF, 1995); 2) Design by Contract; and 3) Test driven
> > \> development.
> > \>
> > \> --
> > \> Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C).
> > \>
---
### Author:  [@Benjohn\_Barnes](https://rubytalk.org/u/Benjohn_Barnes)
#### Post date: [11 February 2007 22:04 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/17 "2007-02-11T22:04:19Z")
That's really cool! I can't see how it works. Doesn't seem to be SVG. Anyone know?
Cheers,
Benjohn
> **路路路**
>
> On 11 Feb 2007, at 15:18, SonOfLilit wrote:
>
> > By the way, this is looking REALLY great:
> >
> > [http://www.logowiki.net/](http://www.logowiki.net/)
> >
> > It's... It's like TryRuby with graphics!
---
### Author:  [@Vladimir\_Konrad2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Vladimir_Konrad2)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 16:37 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/18 "2007-02-12T16:37:47Z")
> Scheme isn't much used by professional programmers...
maybe it is not used much (meaning being popular), but my very good
friend is doing advanced programming for a big bank in germany, mainly
using scheme 48 implementation (he very rarely uses any other
programming language). so it does happen - mainly if the projects get
hard enough...
vlad
> **路路路**
>
> --
> Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C).
---
### Author:  [@Morton\_Goldberg](https://rubytalk.org/u/Morton_Goldberg)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 19:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/19 "2007-02-12T19:47:30Z")
The Ruby Quiz turtle graphics kit is more Logo-like. One can write in the style of your example or one can write (using Logo short form commands)
Turtle.new.run { fd 100; rt 120 }
or (using Logo long form commands)
Turtle.new.run { forward 100; right 120 }
It was written and tested with Ruby 1.8.
Regards, Morton
> **路路路**
>
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Brian Candler wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 08:58:41AM +0000, Brian Candler wrote:
> >
> > > A reply pointed to
> > > [http://onestepback.org/packages/rubyturtles/](http://onestepback.org/packages/rubyturtles/)
> >
> > I've tried it now. It works exactly how I was hoping:
> >
> > $ irb1.8 -rtkturtle
> > irb(main):001:0\> include TurtleGraphics
> > =\> Object
> > irb(main):002:0\> fred = Turtle.new
> > =\> Turtle(0,[0,0])
> > irb(main):003:0\> fred.pendown
> > =\> nil
> > irb(main):004:0\> 3.times { fred.forward 100; fred.turn 120 }
> > =\> 3
> >
> > The included examples all work, although the test suite generates a few
> > parser warnings (possibly meaning it was written for ruby 1.6)
> >
> > However I love the following stanza from testturtle.rb:
> >
> > require 'mock'
> > require 'turtle'
---
### Author:  [@Aur\_Saraf](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aur_Saraf)
#### Post date: [12 February 2007 20:33 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260/20 "2007-02-12T20:33:39Z")
> Well ... yes, but there are clear differences in the popularity of
> Common Lisp and Scheme. There is a lot of real-world software written in
> Common Lisp. Scheme, on the other hand, is primarily a pedagogical
> language. The most common non-pedagogical use for Scheme is as a
> "scripting language" for tools like TeXmacs. And that is most often done
> using the Guile implementation.
More important is "CAN it be used?". I think it can. Am I wrong?
What is it about MIT and wanting to build languages and computers for
> children? 馃檪
You got a point there. Well, MIT seem to be the only guys around (funded by
research grants) that care about how humans can use computers better, and
that's part of it.
Seriously, though, I started programming for a living when
> APL was a gleam in someone's eye and Lisp 1.5 was the most advanced
> functional language you could actually get your hands on. My programming
> "childhood" was spent in the FORTRAN and macro-assembler world. I was
> sad to see Lisp "dumbed down to Logo for kids" and FORTRAN "dumbed down
> to BASIC for Dartmouth undergraduates". The other side of that coin,
> though, is that I was also sad to see the first really high quality
> computer for kids, the TI 99/4, die.
>
> My point remains that programming students who will go on to become
> programmers or electrical engineers or computer scientists or applied
> mathematicians or software engineers quickly outgrow things like Logo
> and Dartmouth BASIC.
I don't necessarily want my sister to become one of those. I want to give
her an important skill and a great hobby.
Myself, for example, though ALL of my previous work experience is as a
programmer (and so is my current half-job), I am studying Mechanical
Engineering. I love programming and it is my most regarded hobby, but I
wouldn't like to practice it as a hired employee.
Well ... despite the obvious pedagogical nature of Scheme in general and
> Dr. Scheme in particular, I'm leaning towards Ruby unless the goal is to
> prepare her for an academic career or something similar. Scheme isn't
> much used by professional programmers, and it isn't growing in
> popularity relative to other languages. Ruby, on the other hand, \*is\*
> growing in popularity and can do more things without having to build
> them from the ground up.
Again - if she'd want to build a real world application in scheme, COULD
she?
One final note -- perhaps you can persuade Chris Pine and the good folks
> at Pragmatic Programmers that a Hebrew translation of "Learn to Program"
> is a good idea. Why should all the good Ruby books be in Japanese and
> English only?
With less than ten million Hebrew speakers worldwide, and all virtually all
Hebrew geeks fluent in English, I don't think so.
Nobody treated the issue of which would be better for a beginner syntax- and
concept-wise.
Any opinion?
Aur Saraf
> **路路路**
>
> On 2/12/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky \ wrote:
[Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/getting-my-sister-to-learn-programming/35260.md?page=2)