Getting my sister to learn programming

ruby-talk
21

Oh, man. I was *SO* happy to see that machine dead. The TI 99/4 was
a big piece of poo and it was already dead on arrival.
By the time the TI 99/4 was used for teaching, I was using an Atari
800XL computer... with 256 colors, colored sprites, blitter, etc...
and with 48K or so of memory, instead of the pathetic monochrome
screens and 16K or less of most machines back then ( the TI99 had
basically no RAM and forced you to buy the additional 32K module).
And with a BASIC that was not a pain to use and was built into the
ROM, not taking useful RAM. The Atari 800XL is without a doubt one of
the best pieces of computer equipment I ever owned.
Trust me, as one of those students that was forced to use a TI because
someone sold my school that those machines were good teaching
machines, I can attest it was shear PAIN to have to work on that piece
of crap machine.
The original Atari computer line was *the* best computer to teach at
the time. Not a PC, not an Apple, not a Spectrum, not a C=64. It
just was hard and somewhat expensive to get them, as their stock was
small. Atari was also run by morons back then, who figured selling a
computer was the same as selling a game console. You put it in a
window and it sells... doesn't it?

Other than that, I do agree with your post, thou.

···

On Feb 12, 11:56 am, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <z...@cesmail.net> wrote:

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.

22

But, although JS is a very powerful language, it is an ugly one syntax-wise,
and that immediately throws it off.

Remember how I failed miserably when trying to teach her C.

···

On 2/15/07, Mushfeq Khan <mushfeq.khan@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seems like exactly something to KILL the spark that I am so trying to
> preserve...
>
> On 2/13/07, Suraj Kurapati <snk@gna.org> 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
> >
> > 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/\.
> >
>

23

javascript itself is a beautiful language, but trying to do anything
real with it will involve messing with the browser DOM, which I'd
strongly derecommend.

martin

···

On 2/15/07, Mushfeq Khan <mushfeq.khan@gmail.com> wrote:

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!

24

It's using the canvas[1] tag, a vector graphics canvas built into
Safari & Firefox. Might be fun to use for learning JavaScript (esp.
with Firefox+Firebug.)

You can do fun stuff like
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/irkheikk/fireworks2.7.html with it </plug>

[1] Canvas tutorial - Web APIs | MDN

···

On 2/12/07, Benjohn Barnes <benjohn@fysh.org> wrote:

On 11 Feb 2007, at 15:18, SonOfLilit wrote:

> By the way, this is looking REALLY great:
>
> http://www.logowiki.net/
>
> It's... It's like TryRuby with graphics!

That's really cool! I can't see how it works. Doesn't seem to be SVG.
Anyone know?

--
Ilmari

25

It is done with Canvas (so it might not work in IE).

It IS very very fun.

I had lots of fun just playing with it.

Interesting, how neat design makes playing with graphics more fun.

Only problem is that they seem to be read-only - I'd want to put lessons for
my sister there that others could read and enjoy too.

Aur Saraf

···

On 2/12/07, Benjohn Barnes <benjohn@fysh.org> wrote:

On 11 Feb 2007, at 15:18, SonOfLilit wrote:

> By the way, this is looking REALLY great:
>
> http://www.logowiki.net/
>
> It's... It's like TryRuby with graphics!

That's really cool! I can't see how it works. Doesn't seem to be SVG.
Anyone know?

Cheers,
        Benjohn

26

Vladimir Konrad wrote:

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
  

I went to a Scheme satellite session at a conference on functional languages in Portland last September. The overwhelming majority of the papers were academic; there were IIRC only two papers on people using Scheme for actual automation of something. One was an Air Force lab that was using it as a scripting language, a task for which 99 percent of the world uses Perl or Python these days. :slight_smile: And the other one was about a port of Scheme to a mobile phone OS.

···

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

27

With PLT scheme, almost certainly. It ships with a very nice
complement of libraries.

martin

···

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:

Again - if she'd want to build a real world application in scheme, COULD
she?

28

Side question to ask ye olde programmers of BASIC age:

Is there a cheap way to get myself one of those oh-so-limited machines, and
one that does not require a TV set?

I always feel like I just never learned the lesson those machines taught
programmers.

Aur Saraf

···

On 2/13/07, gga <GGarramuno@aol.com> wrote:

On Feb 12, 11:56 am, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <z...@cesmail.net> > wrote:
> 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.

Oh, man. I was *SO* happy to see that machine dead. The TI 99/4 was
a big piece of poo and it was already dead on arrival.
By the time the TI 99/4 was used for teaching, I was using an Atari
800XL computer... with 256 colors, colored sprites, blitter, etc...
and with 48K or so of memory, instead of the pathetic monochrome
screens and 16K or less of most machines back then ( the TI99 had
basically no RAM and forced you to buy the additional 32K module).
And with a BASIC that was not a pain to use and was built into the
ROM, not taking useful RAM. The Atari 800XL is without a doubt one of
the best pieces of computer equipment I ever owned.
Trust me, as one of those students that was forced to use a TI because
someone sold my school that those machines were good teaching
machines, I can attest it was shear PAIN to have to work on that piece
of crap machine.
The original Atari computer line was *the* best computer to teach at
the time. Not a PC, not an Apple, not a Spectrum, not a C=64. It
just was hard and somewhat expensive to get them, as their stock was
small. Atari was also run by morons back then, who figured selling a
computer was the same as selling a game console. You put it in a
window and it sells... doesn't it?

Other than that, I do agree with your post, thou.

29

Javascript syntax is scary.

···

On 2/15/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/15/07, Mushfeq Khan <mushfeq.khan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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!

javascript itself is a beautiful language, but trying to do anything
real with it will involve messing with the browser DOM, which I'd
strongly derecommend.

martin

30

> By the way, this is looking REALLY great:
>
> http://www.logowiki.net/
>
> It's... It's like TryRuby with graphics!

That's really cool! I can't see how it works. Doesn't seem to be SVG.
Anyone know?

It's using the canvas[1] tag, a vector graphics canvas built into
Safari & Firefox. Might be fun to use for learning JavaScript (esp.
with Firefox+Firebug.)

Oooh, wonderful! That's kind of what I've been looking about for.

You can do fun stuff like
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/irkheikk/fireworks2.7.html with it </plug>

*grin* but not when you open it from work where the browser is IE though?

[1] Canvas tutorial - Web APIs | MDN

I'll take a good look at this, thank you very much.

···

On 2/12/07, Benjohn Barnes <benjohn@fysh.org> wrote:

On 11 Feb 2007, at 15:18, SonOfLilit wrote:

31

Then, out of curiosity, why don't people USE it for real world apps?

Aur Saraf

···

On 2/12/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again - if she'd want to build a real world application in scheme,
COULD
> she?

With PLT scheme, almost certainly. It ships with a very nice
complement of libraries.

martin

32

fr: Ilmari Heikkinen [mailto:ilmari.heikkinen@gmail.com]
# You can do fun stuff like
# http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/irkheikk/fireworks2.7.html with it </plug>
# [1] http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Drawing_Graphics_with_Canvas

wow, that is very cool.

is it possible to make javascript+css+html as the builtin gui of choice for ruby (besides tk)? maybe, create wrappers in ruby to output html/javascript/css complete with menus/bars/trees/widgets/etc.

ok, if that is difficult, does anyone know of a gui editor producing javascript/css? fr there, we then interface ruby w javascript? i am speaking of course on the client side only, making the ubiquitous browser as the gui interface..

kind regards -botp

33

Hard to say. I speculate that it's because there are more attractive
languages in the various ecological niches it inhabits - ruby and
python are more unixy when you want a scripting language, common lisp
is more 'batteries included' when you want a lisp, ocaml is faster
when you want a multiparadigm language. But when you want a teaching
language, it's hard to beat scheme, and nigh impossible to beat the
DrScheme environment. Then the question is not whether it'll scale up
to be the *best* real-world application platform you can find, but
merely whether it *can* scale up from toy programs to real-world
applications, and the answer to that I'd say is "yes".

Also, I just found out that Euphoria (http://www.rapideuphoria.com/\)
has gone open source, which suddenly makes it a very attractive first
language indeed. Check it out - I know I'm going to start recommending
it to beginners once I've written a couple of small programs to
convince myself it's a pleasant language. The only caveat seems to be
the lack of lexical closures; I'm torn over whether that makes a
difference in a first language.

martin

···

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:

Then, out of curiosity, why don't people USE it for real world apps?

Aur Saraf

On 2/12/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Again - if she'd want to build a real world application in scheme,
> COULD
> > she?
>
> With PLT scheme, almost certainly. It ships with a very nice
> complement of libraries.
>
> martin
>

34

SonOfLilit wrote:

Then, out of curiosity, why don't people USE it for real world apps?

Aur Saraf

>
> Again - if she'd want to build a real world application in scheme,
COULD
> she?

With PLT scheme, almost certainly. It ships with a very nice
complement of libraries.

martin

Simple economics and the law of "good enough". Java is "good enough". C# is "good enough". Perl and Python and Ruby are "good enough". Linux, Windows, MacOS and Solaris are "good enough". Etc. etc. etc.

And because they don't teach *software engineering* using Scheme -- just programming and introductory computer science.

···

On 2/12/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

35

fr: Ilmari Heikkinen [mailto:ilmari.heikkinen@gmail.com]
# You can do fun stuff like
# http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/irkheikk/fireworks2.7.html with it </plug>
# [1] Canvas tutorial - Web APIs | MDN

wow, that is very cool.

Canvas works pretty nicely for making flashy HTML GUIs, here's
a small proof-of-concept http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/irkheikk/login2.html

is it possible to make javascript+css+html as the builtin gui of choice for
ruby (besides tk)? maybe, create wrappers in ruby to output
html/javascript/css complete with menus/bars/trees/widgets/etc.

What's needed: a bunch of ajaxy widgets for html - the web is full of
ready-made ones - and a webrick server to provide auth and
server-side parts of the app. For drawing, canvas and SVG are ok,
for audio you'd need some flash parts[1], 3D stuff, uh, may be hard.
And a DSL for Ruby for constructing these apps with less trouble
than it takes to write the thing in html + js.

I'd design a bunch of simple apps first, extract their requirements,
find or build the components for those, do { write the apps, extract
API } a couple times to get the API right. A slideshow / photo editor,
music player, file manager, notes app, spreadsheet + graph drawer
should be a pretty comprehensive list.

[1] SoundManager 2: JavaScript Sound For The Web

···

On 2/13/07, Peña, Botp <botp@delmonte-phil.com> wrote:

36

Any advantage to Euphoria over Ruby?

Having pass-by-value and copy-on-write seems like the only interesting bit
to me.

Is there any reason at all for a Rubyist to learn it?

Aur Saraf

···

On 2/13/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:

Hard to say. I speculate that it's because there are more attractive
languages in the various ecological niches it inhabits - ruby and
python are more unixy when you want a scripting language, common lisp
is more 'batteries included' when you want a lisp, ocaml is faster
when you want a multiparadigm language. But when you want a teaching
language, it's hard to beat scheme, and nigh impossible to beat the
DrScheme environment. Then the question is not whether it'll scale up
to be the *best* real-world application platform you can find, but
merely whether it *can* scale up from toy programs to real-world
applications, and the answer to that I'd say is "yes".

Also, I just found out that Euphoria (http://www.rapideuphoria.com/\)
has gone open source, which suddenly makes it a very attractive first
language indeed. Check it out - I know I'm going to start recommending
it to beginners once I've written a couple of small programs to
convince myself it's a pleasant language. The only caveat seems to be
the lack of lexical closures; I'm torn over whether that makes a
difference in a first language.

martin

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then, out of curiosity, why don't people USE it for real world apps?
>
> Aur Saraf
>
> On 2/12/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Again - if she'd want to build a real world application in scheme,
> > COULD
> > > she?
> >
> > With PLT scheme, almost certainly. It ships with a very nice
> > complement of libraries.
> >
> > martin
> >
>

37

Wow, you got a strong point there!

So... any ideas as to what the second lesson should be?

The first lesson would be about turtle graphics. I'll let her paint a few
things and then get her to paint scenes in a modular way, using functions
and loops.

Should the second lesson be about a language feature? Should it be
implementing something and learning ob the way whatever is needed? If so,
what should I implement? Perhaps some other beautiful graphic thing? Perhaps
something completely different, like a game or text processing or sound or
homework-solving?

Perhaps to ask her (I'm just not sure she knows enough to answer)?

Aur Saraf

Thanks very much for all the comments upto now

···

On 2/13/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:

And because they don't teach *software engineering* using Scheme -- just
programming and introductory computer science.

38

None that I can see - it looks like a less powerful language, overall,
and as I said, it'll take a *lot* for me personally to learn a new
language that lacks proper lexical closures (the only one I'm even
considering is D). On the other hand, it seems like a better successor
to QBasic than either Ruby, Python or Scheme, or even the various VB
clones, so as a first language it might get someone to the fun bits
faster. I'd say the difference is that Ruby makes programming fun,
whereas Euphoria makes getting a computer to do things fun.

martin

···

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:

Any advantage to Euphoria over Ruby?

Having pass-by-value and copy-on-write seems like the only interesting bit
to me.

Is there any reason at all for a Rubyist to learn it?

39

So... any ideas as to what the second lesson should be?

BTW: I am assuming you are going to teach her Ruby. About the most
serious argument against Ruby you have raised is the English factor,
and I suspect that affects the alternative choices equally, with the
exception perhaps of mainstream commercial/academic languages.

I always found that working with Files was a useful early lesson. You
build on the students existing knowledge of the PC, and it provides
a foundation for other much more interesting tasks, like say:
-indexing all the MP3 files on her PC
-searching through an Instant Message chat log

Perhaps to ask her (I'm just not sure she knows enough to answer)?

One of the things that is not taught well to beginners is giving them an
appreciation for what Programming can do for you. Mostly because this
is something actually quite hard. The big languages aren't suited for
simple script level activities that are good entry points for beginners,
while many scripting languages have low 'ceilings' - you can exhaust
their usefulness quickly.

Ruby is quite unusual in that it provides for simple scripting and easy
learning, but it keeps scaling up in complexity.

But you nailed it: ask her. Some of the ideas she has may be not
appropriate for a beginner, but it is important to know her ambition.
You could structure interim exercises that build towards her
suggestions.

Also a final word: beginners don't know which concepts are hard or
easy. Brian Marick's book 'Everyday Scripting with Ruby' (highly
recommended BTW) is particularly clever about this: it introduces
Ruby Blocks (an advanced concept to an experienced programmer)
before conditionals. This means that beginners will be predisposed
to use more elegant block syntax than verbose conditionals - without
knowing any better, they are being taught to write better code.

In fact his book has a lot of ideas and I am really warming to it as
an entry level book. I got it to teach Ruby to our testers at work,
but I am considering buying it for my Dad & Girlfriend too, who I am
teaching Ruby to as well.

···

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:

40

Could you show examples of things quicker to do in Eu... than in Ruby?

Aur Saraf

···

On 2/13/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/13/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any advantage to Euphoria over Ruby?
>
> Having pass-by-value and copy-on-write seems like the only interesting
bit
> to me.
>
> Is there any reason at all for a Rubyist to learn it?

None that I can see - it looks like a less powerful language, overall,
and as I said, it'll take a *lot* for me personally to learn a new
language that lacks proper lexical closures (the only one I'm even
considering is D). On the other hand, it seems like a better successor
to QBasic than either Ruby, Python or Scheme, or even the various VB
clones, so as a first language it might get someone to the fun bits
faster. I'd say the difference is that Ruby makes programming fun,
whereas Euphoria makes getting a computer to do things fun.

martin