Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
In reply to Steven: - Firstly, Wikipedia isn't a great source to quote. :-D - Secondly, OOP as a style has basic stuff, and it has advanced stuff. I'm not saying teach inheritance and polymorphism on day 1, I'm saying teach that objects have properties (and then objects have methods). Not necessarily because it's _better_ than procedural (we could argue that forever) but because _almost all day-to-day programming languages that the students will encounter will involve objects, properties and methods_. In reply to Alan: Your first example applies equally to OOP or procedural - it's a code snippet, not a coding style. Your second example is overcomplicated - why teach getters and setters from the word go when a property (public var age:Number;) is far simpler/more obvious? Yes, getters and setters are part of the OOP paradigm, but not a requirement. Ian On 8/21/07, Alan MacDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So rather than engage in an argument as to whether OOP or procedural is better, we're basically asking: Do the additional distractions of OOP justify the payoff from learning it up front? If you're teaching fellow geeks, then yes. If you're teaching people with a more casual interest in programming, or (shudder) people who are required to take the class, you may want to keep it script-simple. Compare: ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Dave Mennenoh schrieb: I usually find it pretty awkward to try and objectify an entire project - it just doesn't help. I find the combo works quite well for me - and besides, it's still all oop if you think about it... how big must a project be, so you start objectify your code? you do not need OOP for flash banners(in some context debatable) nor for a little flash menu which controls a html page. but at the moment you program a flash site with different pages and content, i cannot even imagine doing it completely procedural. Dave - Head Developer http://www.blurredistinction.com Adobe Community Expert http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript: patterns derail!
How do you handle onLoad's famous scope? ... It is not magic or advanced. If a pattern was shown to a new programmer without giving it a fancy name, they would just accept it as the best way to do the task and would never give it moment's thought. Right. Delegate - ie Proxy. I agree. I wasn't saying patterns shouldn't be taught, or used - I doubt you could teach a Flash class these days without teaching Observer, but you might not ever call it that. In fact, I wonder who does call it that in a class? Actually, the more I think about it, I think for students it might be best not to call these patterns and just teach them. Then, once they know how to use them, tell them what they are. It's a bit like teaching encapsulation I think - if you just show your students how to write classes, and they see how classes work for organizing code, they will likely just use them. Dave - Head Developer http://www.blurredistinction.com Adobe Community Expert http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript: patterns derail!
Dave Mennenoh wrote: How do you handle onLoad's famous scope? ... It is not magic or advanced. If a pattern was shown to a new programmer without giving it a fancy name, they would just accept it as the best way to do the task and would never give it moment's thought. Right. Delegate - ie Proxy. I agree. I wasn't saying patterns shouldn't be taught, or used - I doubt you could teach a Flash class these days without teaching Observer, but you might not ever call it that. In fact, I wonder who does call it that in a class? Actually, the more I think about it, I think for students it might be best not to call these patterns and just teach them. Then, once they know how to use them, tell them what they are. It's a bit like teaching encapsulation I think - if you just show your students how to write classes, and they see how classes work for organizing code, they will likely just use them. That is what I have been saying from the start of this discussion. You do not have to teach the fancy names. Just teach them to use proper coding practices. OOP and Design Patterns are just names that we use to group a bunch of best practices into theories so we can discuss the theory and have a framework to critique code. I have a feeling that for most of us, the word polymorphism is not much of a help and I see no reason to even use the word on 14 year olds until the last week of class and only then as a warning that someday someone might try to use it on them in a discussion about design. Ron Dave - Head Developer http://www.blurredistinction.com Adobe Community Expert http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Ian Thomas wrote: In reply to Steven: - Firstly, Wikipedia isn't a great source to quote. :-D - Secondly, OOP as a style has basic stuff, and it has advanced stuff. I'm not saying teach inheritance and polymorphism on day 1, I'm saying teach that objects have properties (and then objects have methods). Not necessarily because it's _better_ than procedural (we could argue that forever) but because _almost all day-to-day programming languages that the students will encounter will involve objects, properties and methods_. In reply to Alan: Your first example applies equally to OOP or procedural - it's a code snippet, not a coding style. Your second example is overcomplicated - why teach getters and setters from the word go when a property (public var age:Number;) is far simpler/more obvious? Yes, getters and setters are part of the OOP paradigm, but not a requirement. That was my example. You teach people the right way to do it so that they never consider addressing a property directly. It may look easier but someday, it will break your code in a way that will cause you a lot of grief. There are good reasons why it is not done. Not addressing properties is a requirement of OOP otherwise you break encapsulation. When a person is first starting out, they will not question whether it is easier or harder. It just is.None of my test frameworks would ever address a property directly. I would not even mention the possibility of doing such a silly thing. If the discussion ever comes up, I would defer it until after the first 6 weeks and then use it to discuss the reasons why encapsulation is a good thing and show why directly addressing properties is inherently evil. It is also a good introduction into a discussion about programming to interfaces which I also would have taught from day one. Not as a topic but as a way to specify coding exercises. Give them the interface and the program to test the class and ask them to create the class. Do not explain why, just let them have the freedom of naming variables and programming methods as long as it works with the interface. From reviewing and discussing each other's code, they would already know that the properties of a given class may vary from person to person even if the Class is perfectly correct, the variable names follow standards and the Class satisfies the interface. They would already know that trying to guess property names for a class is impossible and that if you switched from one person's implementation to another, your program could fail if you have tried to use properties directly. They would have seen that the test frameworks given for each exercise were not implementation dependent.. Ron Ian On 8/21/07, Alan MacDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So rather than engage in an argument as to whether OOP or procedural is better, we're basically asking: Do the additional distractions of OOP justify the payoff from learning it up front? If you're teaching fellow geeks, then yes. If you're teaching people with a more casual interest in programming, or (shudder) people who are required to take the class, you may want to keep it script-simple. Compare: ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Ian Thomas wrote: In reply to Steven: - Firstly, Wikipedia isn't a great source to quote. :-D - Secondly, OOP as a style has basic stuff, and it has advanced stuff. I'm not saying teach inheritance and polymorphism on day 1, I'm saying teach that objects have properties (and then objects have methods). Not necessarily because it's _better_ than procedural (we could argue that forever) but because _almost all day-to-day programming languages that the students will encounter will involve objects, properties and methods_. In reply to Alan: Your first example applies equally to OOP or procedural - it's a code snippet, not a coding style. Your second example is overcomplicated - why teach getters and setters from the word go when a property (public var age:Number;) is far simpler/more obvious? Yes, getters and setters are part of the OOP paradigm, but not a requirement. Ian I would probably be more emphatic about getters and setter. If you are going to hire an expert ActionScript programmer and they give you code samples with public properties in their classes, ask for a copy of the liability insurance certificate. It means that they either lazy or not competent and their code will likely contain so-called shortcuts that will cost you a lot of time and money later. If you are going to pay for something, it should at least be safe. Forgetting the private on a property is a full mark deduction in class. Ron On 8/21/07, Alan MacDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So rather than engage in an argument as to whether OOP or procedural is better, we're basically asking: Do the additional distractions of OOP justify the payoff from learning it up front? If you're teaching fellow geeks, then yes. If you're teaching people with a more casual interest in programming, or (shudder) people who are required to take the class, you may want to keep it script-simple. Compare: ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/22/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian Thomas wrote: Your second example is overcomplicated - why teach getters and setters from the word go when a property (public var age:Number;) is far simpler/more obvious? Yes, getters and setters are part of the OOP paradigm, but not a requirement. That was my example. You teach people the right way to do it so that they never consider addressing a property directly. It may look easier but someday, it will break your code in a way that will cause you a lot of grief. There are good reasons why it is not done. Not addressing properties is a requirement of OOP otherwise you break encapsulation. I think my head is in AS2/AS3 world, where you're dealing with instrinsic getters and setters, i.e. the AS2/AS3 syntax. Which, personally, I find a much better solution than the Java getters/setters. But that's a conversation for another day. :-) You're right, my example was bad practice. But at a higher level than Java, it is perfectly permissible to have public properties in OOP. It's just that, in Java, a property called 'Age' is accessed via 'obj.getAge()', in AS3 it's obj.age via 'function get age()', when talking to a Bean via BSF it's just obj.age, when reading a data structure it's just obj.age, in PHP it's $obj-age and so on. Properties exist and are legal to talk to - look at any OOP-based API. :-) OOP, at a basic level, consists of objects, methods _and_ properties - and my argument is that mainstream programming is all converging on that model and that's why it should be taught. But properties aren't public member variables, which is where my example was wrong. :-) Ian ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript: patterns derail!
The fancy names are kind of useful actually. Most of the patterns I've learned but I didn't know the fancy/official names for them. This caused some confusion when talking with my coworker as he would be simply using the names instead of the concepts and I'd have to stop and figure out which one he meant, or I'd spend extra time explaining what I was talking about when I could have just said the name and been done with it. The names are useful as a common/shared way of referencing complex concepts. That said, the concepts are much more important than the names, as you can get by just fine with only the concepts, but fail miserably on with just the names. :) -Andy On 8/22/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Mennenoh wrote: How do you handle onLoad's famous scope? ... It is not magic or advanced. If a pattern was shown to a new programmer without giving it a fancy name, they would just accept it as the best way to do the task and would never give it moment's thought. Right. Delegate - ie Proxy. I agree. I wasn't saying patterns shouldn't be taught, or used - I doubt you could teach a Flash class these days without teaching Observer, but you might not ever call it that. In fact, I wonder who does call it that in a class? Actually, the more I think about it, I think for students it might be best not to call these patterns and just teach them. Then, once they know how to use them, tell them what they are. It's a bit like teaching encapsulation I think - if you just show your students how to write classes, and they see how classes work for organizing code, they will likely just use them. That is what I have been saying from the start of this discussion. You do not have to teach the fancy names. Just teach them to use proper coding practices. OOP and Design Patterns are just names that we use to group a bunch of best practices into theories so we can discuss the theory and have a framework to critique code. I have a feeling that for most of us, the word polymorphism is not much of a help and I see no reason to even use the word on 14 year olds until the last week of class and only then as a warning that someday someone might try to use it on them in a discussion about design. Ron Dave - Head Developer http://www.blurredistinction.com Adobe Community Expert http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
English Windows 3.1? I would have died if it hadn't been for Paetzold. Heh, and I was just peeking at the Win32 API book last night. Didn't expect to see that name again. ; ) On the subject of teaching OOP to non-programmers, I'm torn. I've seen the method of We'll explain later but for now just type this code work in Java. I've also see it leave an entire class of Java students dazed and confused. The time it worked, Java was taught starting completely with swing where we were asked to build something on day one using the swing classes/controls and the OO concepts kept appearing in a natural way along with basic concepts. The class seemed to take the concepts in stride. The time it didn't work was my second trip through Java with a different instructor. This class went through the basics of programming in a linear way and when the OOP concepts started (or the what we've been doing lecture), I'm not sure I've ever so many people rubbing their heads and staring blankly. Granted, I think it came down to the instructor and how she ran the class, but at the same time, it felt like the content switched gears on the second class. Some people couldn't adapt their thinking. In a later conversation with that instructor she mentioned that she always has about 40% (pulling a sufficiently high number out of the air) of the class drop at that lesson. Thinking about the swing+Java class, I'm not sure how you could translate that to AS2 without hoops that muddy the OOP waters (attachMovieClip, createEmptyMovieClip). Heh, sorry, long post simply because seeing Petzold's name gave me warm fuzzies. Jer ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Start small and work your way up. You don't need classes until the functions start to get unmanageable. That won't happen until you've thoroughly covered variables and control structures. By the time classes are necessary, the students should be relieved to have a way to organize their forest of elaborate functions. Even if they're introduced in an organic and natural way, like building a Swing application, they're going to just be one more distraction for people who are struggling with the syntax of a for loop. They're an intermediate topic, treat them as one. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I do not believe that starting people out doing things the wrong way is ever a good start. Teach OOP from the day one. Not as a name or a theory but as a normal way to program. Just start with simple classes and give the students a framework for testing that they do not have to deal with. You can start with very simple classes representing everyday objects that everyone can understand. You can introduce various types of variables very easily - one at a time. (Cats have a name, add in age, later add date of birth) You can add Arrarys very easily in the context of a real world object. (Add in an array of offspring) If you provide the Pet interface with the test program, the students will see how their names for properties do not matter. By the time you have to explain what OOP is, the kids will already be programming OOP and wonder why anyone ever did it any other way. Ron Alan MacDougall wrote: Start small and work your way up. You don't need classes until the functions start to get unmanageable. That won't happen until you've thoroughly covered variables and control structures. By the time classes are necessary, the students should be relieved to have a way to organize their forest of elaborate functions. Even if they're introduced in an organic and natural way, like building a Swing application, they're going to just be one more distraction for people who are struggling with the syntax of a for loop. They're an intermediate topic, treat them as one. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
For the record, I completely agree, Ron. Ian On 8/21/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not believe that starting people out doing things the wrong way is ever a good start. Teach OOP from the day one. Not as a name or a theory but as a normal way to program. Just start with simple classes and give the students a framework for testing that they do not have to deal with. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Procedural isn't wrong. OOP isn't right. They're used for different purposes. The fact is, OOP is a trade off for flexibility and scalability over speed; speed in development, speed in execution. Procedural programming has its place (ask any game developer). Procedural programming is a necessary and important first step in learning how to code. It's the best way to learn how programming works because it's a simplified approach and won't get in the way of learning basic syntax. People with no programming experience will not understand abstract concepts like classes, inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation - the very things that make up OOP. OOP is a specialized dialect, built upon the basic language of programming. If you don't learn the basics, you can't truly learn the dialect. It's akin to learning phrases from a French phrase book and going to Paris on vacation versus learning how conjugation and verb tenses work combined with vocabulary. Who is going to be more successful at carrying on rudimentary conversations, or understanding what's being said to them? If we take two students and you teach them OOP for 1 month and I teach them procedural for two weeks and then OOP for two weeks, my student will be further along than your student. The reason is simple. When you learn the fundamentals first you have a greater capacity for understanding of more advanced topics. If you take somebody snowboarding and force them to learn how to do a 720 without teaching them anything else, they will eventually be able to do a 720. If you instead teach them all the basic moves, how to enter and exit tricks, and then move into 180s, 270s and 360s, they'll be much better at snowboarding in general and will naturally learn 720s soon after. Plus, if you sit down with non-programmers to teach them OOP, and you have to teach them the basics first, you will find yourself naturally teaching them procedural programming because every time you try to move into topics OOP, your students will get lost and you'll end up circling back to explain the basics again. OOP is not a beginner topic. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/21/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we take two students and you teach them OOP for 1 month and I teach them procedural for two weeks and then OOP for two weeks, my student will be further along than your student. The reason is simple. When you learn the fundamentals first you have a greater capacity for understanding of more advanced topics. I really don't agree -- and I'd like to see you back that assertion up with some hard data. Getting across the idea that (for example) a game object has a bunch of attributes/properties (speed, direction, score, colour) -- that doesn't require prior programming knowledge. Getting across the idea that an object has an x value and if you increment it, it goes right - that requires a bit of geometry, but again, not prior programming knowledge. Inheritance, abstraction, interfaces et al - these are all advanced topics and require a firm base to be working from (and there I agree with you). But there's no reason why that base can't be objects, methods and properties rather than procedures. Objects are easy to relate to real-world examples. Given that nearly every language - not to mention data representation - in common use these days either uses, or is capable of using a model that uses objects, methods and properties, it'd be vastly helpful to have students working from that basis. Ian ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Steven Sacks wrote: Procedural programming is a necessary and important first step in learning how to code I've been following this debate, and I pretty much agree with Steven. I remember when I took my first programming course, and the professor told us we'd need a 5 1/4 floppy disk. I asked what's that? He told me, and I went down to the local office supply store and put down my $5 for my very first floppy. The point is that we're way up here, and the students may not even understand what a variable is. They need the basic concepts of a function/procedure/subroutine/method, variables, and more advanced concepts like control (if) and iteration (for, while). Backtracking a bit, do you remember when you took your first algebra class, and were first introduced to the concept of a variable? To me, that's the dividing line between arithmetic and mathematics. Just the idea of a variable is a tough concept to grasp at first. I don't think you need to call it procedural. Just call it the basic building blocks that they will need for OOP (or procedural, for that matter). There's not that much difference, really, between OOP and procedural. OOP just encapsulates chunks of procedural code and its data. ActionScript's built-in classes are much like the libraries I used in Turbo Pascal in the 80s. Modern programming requires that you understand OOP, and I would move the students very quickly to an OOP paradigm. But, like Steven says, they need the basics, which are really neither procedural nor OOP. They're just the basics. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/21/07, Ian Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/21/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we take two students and you teach them OOP for 1 month and I teach them procedural for two weeks and then OOP for two weeks, my student will be further along than your student.s. I really don't agree -- and I'd like to see you back that assertion up with some hard data. I actually wonder how much of us are qualified to judge. Most of us probably learned procedural programming first, so that seems natural to us. When I taught myself BASIC on my family's TI 99/4A back in the early '80s (and later on our Commodore 64 circa 1990), OOP didn't even exist. Of course, it laid out the fundamentals so that, by the time I was in high school and OOP was gaining impetus, I was ready to learn it--with a bit of initial struggling. So that route worked, in the end. But was it the best route? Some of the basics I learned early on, like GOTO and line numbers, are barely present in programming anymore (assembly language excepted). And would it have been easier to segue into OOP if I had been used to dealing with variables that had fields and methods? Would it have been that much harder to learn to use Math.abs() rather than ABS(), or bitmapData.getPixel(row, col) rather than peek offset + screenwidth * row + col? I feel like it might have been beneficial to start using objects, even without understanding everything about them, shortly after learning about simple variables. But, then again, I don't really know. When I taught children how to program in the late '90s, some of the languages I taught required using objects (Visual Basic) and others didn't (LOGO). I really don't recall there being much difference in the difficulty. Of course I didn't go very deeply into OOP, just how to use existing APIs. But maybe that was a better approach, ultimately. I don't know--I haven't kept in touch with any of the kids. Is there any younger person or latecomer out there who started using OOP basics when learning to program for the first time? What are your thoughts? -- Mike Keesey ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
If you want to teach kids about forests, making them look at leaves under a microscope for 6-12 months is not the way to go about it. While a leaf may be fundamental to the life of a tree, a complete understanding of that leaf is not even remotely necessary to understanding what a forest is about. OOP is a great approach to programming, and there's absolutely no reason to ensure that students are seeing strings in their dreams before teaching it. Whether you teach a procedural or an OOP methodology, you're going to have to teach basics concurrently...there's no getting around it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Thomas Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:17 AM To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript On 8/21/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we take two students and you teach them OOP for 1 month and I teach them procedural for two weeks and then OOP for two weeks, my student will be further along than your student. The reason is simple. When you learn the fundamentals first you have a greater capacity for understanding of more advanced topics. I really don't agree -- and I'd like to see you back that assertion up with some hard data. Getting across the idea that (for example) a game object has a bunch of attributes/properties (speed, direction, score, colour) -- that doesn't require prior programming knowledge. Getting across the idea that an object has an x value and if you increment it, it goes right - that requires a bit of geometry, but again, not prior programming knowledge. Inheritance, abstraction, interfaces et al - these are all advanced topics and require a firm base to be working from (and there I agree with you). But there's no reason why that base can't be objects, methods and properties rather than procedures. Objects are easy to relate to real-world examples. Given that nearly every language - not to mention data representation - in common use these days either uses, or is capable of using a model that uses objects, methods and properties, it'd be vastly helpful to have students working from that basis. Ian ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/21/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm that uses objects and their interactions to design applications and computer programs. It is based on several techniques, including inheritance, modularity, polymorphism, and encapsulation. OOP is based on the things you acknowledge are advanced topics. Ipso facto, OOP is advanced, right? ;) I think there's actually more agreement than disagreement here. Nobody is arguing that you should be teaching polymorphism on the second day, just that you can start to introduce objects at an early stage. I mean, if you can start with: x = 500; trace(x); ... you could certainly also start with: myShape.x = 500; The core basics of OOP--using fields and methods--are not that far beyond the core basics of programming--using variables and functions. Of course inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, etc. come much later, and design patterns even later. No one would dispute that, I think. -- Mike Keesey ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
most college programming courses have prerequisites right? personally i know many programmers who don't have a background in programming who jumped right into oop...just looking at the code i can tell what they understand about programming let alone oop... my 0.02 pieces of lint p ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I see it as something of a Math class (my degree is in math so bear with me). People aren't just going to be thrown into Calculus before at least learning algebra. There is some argument that teaching calculus sooner could be beneficial (i'm in that camp but theres a whole different set of issues there), but at the same time its hard to imagine learning calculus without at least having some concept of what infinite means. Same would go for OOP - you couldn't learn it without first knowing what function means. Sure you could teach it during the class, but why not get all of that out of the way along with other simpler concepts in a foundations class before actually brining OOP into the picture. Much the same way you are taught how to compute area, and limits, before being thrown into derivatives and integrals. -CD On 8/21/07, [p e r c e p t i c o n] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most college programming courses have prerequisites right? personally i know many programmers who don't have a background in programming who jumped right into oop...just looking at the code i can tell what they understand about programming let alone oop... my 0.02 pieces of lint p ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On Aug 21, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: Lesson 2 How do you set/change a cats name? How do you create 2 cats with different names? Now they know about setters and getters and methods with parameters. Now you are *really* talking about encapsulation... since everyone knows that cats don't know their own names. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I don't think you need to call it procedural. Just call it the basic
building blocks that they will need for OOP (or procedural, for that
matter).
There's not that much difference, really, between OOP and procedural. OOP
just encapsulates chunks of procedural code and its data.
This is the correct answer. OOP probably isn't a bad framework in which
to teach these things, but when you start teaching you may be surprised
by how many students have a hard time grasping concepts that may seem
simple to you, even as simple as the relationship between a class and an
instance. You will also see students who blur through the work and get
bored five minutes after each class starts... but they aren't the ones
we're worried about.
So rather than engage in an argument as to whether OOP or procedural is
better, we're basically asking: Do the additional distractions of OOP
justify the payoff from learning it up front? If you're teaching fellow
geeks, then yes. If you're teaching people with a more casual interest
in programming, or (shudder) people who are required to take the class,
you may want to keep it script-simple. Compare:
var foo:Number = 1;
var bar:Number = 2;
trace(foo + bar);
vs.
class Cat
{
private var age:Number;
public function setAge(age:Number):Void {this.age = age;}
public function getAge():Number {return age;}
}
var whiskers:Cat = new Cat();
whiskers.setAge(1);
var patches:Cat = new Cat();
patches.setAge(2);
trace(whiskers.getAge() + patches.getAge());
Is it so unrealistic to suggest that the second example, while having a
pleasant real-world basis, involves many more steps and logical leaps
for an absolute beginner to understand?
Maybe this is a strawman... I guess you could start with how getters and
setters work in the first place, and use that to explain
functions/methods. It just seems like a bit too much drapery to start
out with.
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Can you explain to me how a function is intrinsically simpler than a method? I have a feeling that there is a lot more mythology about OOP than there should be. 1) OOP uses the same compiler as spaghetti code. 2) OOP is written using procedural languages (the opposite of procedural is declarative) 3)OOP is based on some interesting theory and has a funny vocabulary but if you ignore all of these linguistic shortcuts and just explain what you mean, it is pretty simple. 4) OOP generally results in the average programmer producing code that is easier to debug and maintain that the average programmer used to be capable of doing. It is not a cure-all for stupidity or lazy thinking. It is just easier to spot and fix poorly written code. 5) OOP is a way to approach design; more beginning programmers (and experienced programmers) have trouble with design than coding. 6) OOP will not cure baldness but it will reduce the number of times you are pulling your hair out in frustration over a programming error. Ron chris duke wrote: I see it as something of a Math class (my degree is in math so bear with me). People aren't just going to be thrown into Calculus before at least learning algebra. There is some argument that teaching calculus sooner could be beneficial (i'm in that camp but theres a whole different set of issues there), but at the same time its hard to imagine learning calculus without at least having some concept of what infinite means. Same would go for OOP - you couldn't learn it without first knowing what function means. Sure you could teach it during the class, but why not get all of that out of the way along with other simpler concepts in a foundations class before actually brining OOP into the picture. Much the same way you are taught how to compute area, and limits, before being thrown into derivatives and integrals. -CD On 8/21/07, [p e r c e p t i c o n] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most college programming courses have prerequisites right? personally i know many programmers who don't have a background in programming who jumped right into oop...just looking at the code i can tell what they understand about programming let alone oop... my 0.02 pieces of lint p ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
They do know their names. They are just not going to give you the satisfaction of coming just because you called them. That is what dogs were invented for. Ron Troy Rollins wrote: On Aug 21, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: Lesson 2 How do you set/change a cats name? How do you create 2 cats with different names? Now they know about setters and getters and methods with parameters. Now you are *really* talking about encapsulation... since everyone knows that cats don't know their own names. -- Troy RPSystems, Ltd. http://www.rpsystems.net ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
If you take somebody snowboarding and force them to learn how to do a 720 without teaching them anything else, they will eventually be able to do a 720. If you instead teach them all the basic moves, how to enter and exit tricks, and then move into 180s, 270s and 360s, they'll be much better at snowboarding in general and will naturally learn 720s soon after. You can't just teach somebody to snowboard without first teaching them how to ski. They need to get a feeling for the snow first, on two boards, learn how to use the lift and so on. But in terms of programming, I agree with Ron. OOP is more natural and closer to real life experiences. Mark On 8/21/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Procedural isn't wrong. OOP isn't right. They're used for different purposes. The fact is, OOP is a trade off for flexibility and scalability over speed; speed in development, speed in execution. Procedural programming has its place (ask any game developer). Procedural programming is a necessary and important first step in learning how to code. It's the best way to learn how programming works because it's a simplified approach and won't get in the way of learning basic syntax. People with no programming experience will not understand abstract concepts like classes, inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation - the very things that make up OOP. OOP is a specialized dialect, built upon the basic language of programming. If you don't learn the basics, you can't truly learn the dialect. It's akin to learning phrases from a French phrase book and going to Paris on vacation versus learning how conjugation and verb tenses work combined with vocabulary. Who is going to be more successful at carrying on rudimentary conversations, or understanding what's being said to them? If we take two students and you teach them OOP for 1 month and I teach them procedural for two weeks and then OOP for two weeks, my student will be further along than your student. The reason is simple. When you learn the fundamentals first you have a greater capacity for understanding of more advanced topics. If you take somebody snowboarding and force them to learn how to do a 720 without teaching them anything else, they will eventually be able to do a 720. If you instead teach them all the basic moves, how to enter and exit tricks, and then move into 180s, 270s and 360s, they'll be much better at snowboarding in general and will naturally learn 720s soon after. Plus, if you sit down with non-programmers to teach them OOP, and you have to teach them the basics first, you will find yourself naturally teaching them procedural programming because every time you try to move into topics OOP, your students will get lost and you'll end up circling back to explain the basics again. OOP is not a beginner topic. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Interesting point.
My counter would be that at the age of 14, these kids already have a
good understanding of foo+bar (and knowing to days kids fubar as well.)
I am not trying to teach them arithmetic. I am interested in showing
them how arithmetic is used in the context of programming to accomplish
something worthwhile like adding up the age of 2 cats.
Fortunately the + operation maps pretty well into the vocabulary of
arithmetic so I would not expect students shown either example to
flounder on the + sign.
I really want to teach them the right way to represent cats as things
inside a computer and to manipulate these abstractions as easily or more
easily than they can manipulate realworld cats. And to be able to extend
this same approach to dogs, credit cards, photographs, etc.
Ron
Alan MacDougall wrote:
I don't think you need to call it procedural. Just call it the basic
building blocks that they will need for OOP (or procedural, for that
matter).
There's not that much difference, really, between OOP and procedural.
OOP
just encapsulates chunks of procedural code and its data.
This is the correct answer. OOP probably isn't a bad framework in
which to teach these things, but when you start teaching you may be
surprised by how many students have a hard time grasping concepts that
may seem simple to you, even as simple as the relationship between a
class and an instance. You will also see students who blur through the
work and get bored five minutes after each class starts... but they
aren't the ones we're worried about.
So rather than engage in an argument as to whether OOP or procedural
is better, we're basically asking: Do the additional distractions of
OOP justify the payoff from learning it up front? If you're teaching
fellow geeks, then yes. If you're teaching people with a more casual
interest in programming, or (shudder) people who are required to take
the class, you may want to keep it script-simple. Compare:
var foo:Number = 1;
var bar:Number = 2;
trace(foo + bar);
vs.
class Cat
{
private var age:Number;
public function setAge(age:Number):Void {this.age = age;}
public function getAge():Number {return age;}
}
var whiskers:Cat = new Cat();
whiskers.setAge(1);
var patches:Cat = new Cat();
patches.setAge(2);
trace(whiskers.getAge() + patches.getAge());
Is it so unrealistic to suggest that the second example, while having
a pleasant real-world basis, involves many more steps and logical
leaps for an absolute beginner to understand?
Maybe this is a strawman... I guess you could start with how getters
and setters work in the first place, and use that to explain
functions/methods. It just seems like a bit too much drapery to start
out with.
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
T. Michael Keesey wrote: On 8/21/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm that uses objects and their interactions to design applications and computer programs. It is based on several techniques, including inheritance, modularity, polymorphism, and encapsulation. OOP is based on the things you acknowledge are advanced topics. Ipso facto, OOP is advanced, right? ;) I think there's actually more agreement than disagreement here. Nobody is arguing that you should be teaching polymorphism on the second day, just that you can start to introduce objects at an early stage. I mean, if you can start with: x = 500; trace(x); ... you could certainly also start with: myShape.x = 500; I hope that you meant myshape.setX(500); The core basics of OOP--using fields and methods--are not that far beyond the core basics of programming--using variables and functions. Of course inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, etc. come much later, and design patterns even later. No one would dispute that, I think. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Troy Rollins wrote: since everyone knows that cats don't know their own names. Unless you believe e. e. cummings ^_^ Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
What kind of argument is that? I've never learned to ski and I was able to pick up snowboarding. One is not dependant upon the other. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Winterhalder Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:41 PM To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript If you take somebody snowboarding and force them to learn how to do a 720 without teaching them anything else, they will eventually be able to do a 720. If you instead teach them all the basic moves, how to enter and exit tricks, and then move into 180s, 270s and 360s, they'll be much better at snowboarding in general and will naturally learn 720s soon after. You can't just teach somebody to snowboard without first teaching them how to ski. They need to get a feeling for the snow first, on two boards, learn how to use the lift and so on. But in terms of programming, I agree with Ron. OOP is more natural and closer to real life experiences. Mark On 8/21/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Procedural isn't wrong. OOP isn't right. They're used for different purposes. The fact is, OOP is a trade off for flexibility and scalability over speed; speed in development, speed in execution. Procedural programming has its place (ask any game developer). Procedural programming is a necessary and important first step in learning how to code. It's the best way to learn how programming works because it's a simplified approach and won't get in the way of learning basic syntax. People with no programming experience will not understand abstract concepts like classes, inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation - the very things that make up OOP. OOP is a specialized dialect, built upon the basic language of programming. If you don't learn the basics, you can't truly learn the dialect. It's akin to learning phrases from a French phrase book and going to Paris on vacation versus learning how conjugation and verb tenses work combined with vocabulary. Who is going to be more successful at carrying on rudimentary conversations, or understanding what's being said to them? If we take two students and you teach them OOP for 1 month and I teach them procedural for two weeks and then OOP for two weeks, my student will be further along than your student. The reason is simple. When you learn the fundamentals first you have a greater capacity for understanding of more advanced topics. If you take somebody snowboarding and force them to learn how to do a 720 without teaching them anything else, they will eventually be able to do a 720. If you instead teach them all the basic moves, how to enter and exit tricks, and then move into 180s, 270s and 360s, they'll be much better at snowboarding in general and will naturally learn 720s soon after. Plus, if you sit down with non-programmers to teach them OOP, and you have to teach them the basics first, you will find yourself naturally teaching them procedural programming because every time you try to move into topics OOP, your students will get lost and you'll end up circling back to explain the basics again. OOP is not a beginner topic. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Mark Winterhalder wrote: You can't just teach somebody to snowboard without first teaching them how to ski. Ooh, that's going to get a reaction from the boarders. I'm going to go wax my skis and stay out of this one ^_^ Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Ron Wheeler wrote: Alan MacDougall wrote: I don't think you need to call it procedural. Just call it the basic building blocks that they will need for OOP (or procedural, for that matter). There's not that much difference, really, between OOP and procedural. OOP Actually, that's what Kerry Thompson wrote. Alan was quoting me. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
.I do not believe that starting people out doing things the wrong way is ever a good start. Teach OOP from the day one. Not as a name or a theory but as a normal way to program. Right on Ron. Dave - Head Developer http://www.blurredistinction.com Adobe Community Expert http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Of course inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, etc. come much later, and design patterns even later. No one would dispute that, I think. I'd disagree a little. Encapsulation especially, is a really simple concept. It's about organization and teaching students to stay organize - ie to keep cats in one class and dogs in another is not advanced - no more so than having them build a function that can be reused. Lots of programmers never need design patterns as they don't help much unless your architecting large apps, and lots of Flash programmers aren't developing those kinds of apps. Keeping your code organized however should be taught from day one and certain oop concepts are perfect for that. It's pretty awesome to show students something like a utility class that might store a url for a php script - and use that script in a bunch of movies... then show them how one simple change in the class affects every movie. This is the kind of thing they will appreciate and make use of. Newbies figure out templates in Dreamweaver... sticking code in a class is about the same. I typically use a combination of OOP and procedural - keeping code pertinent to a given movie in that movie if it makes sense, while using classes to store code I use in multiple movies. I usually find it pretty awkward to try and objectify an entire project - it just doesn't help. I find the combo works quite well for me - and besides, it's still all oop if you think about it... Dave - Head Developer http://www.blurredistinction.com Adobe Community Expert http://www.adobe.com/communities/experts/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
You can't just teach somebody to snowboard without first teaching them how to ski. Ooh, that's going to get a reaction from the boarders. I'm going to go wax my skis and stay out of this one ^_^ Aaand now, this thread is completely OT. Please keep to the thread topic or don't respond. Thanks! Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/21/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myShape.x = 500; I hope that you meant myshape.setX(500); Huh? No, that's not part of the flash.display.Shape API. And while it's true that x in this context is actually not a true field, but a pair of methods (__get__x and __set__x, not getX and setX) disguised as a field, I think you can safely ignore that in an introductory class. -- Mike Keesey ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript: patterns derail!
Dave Mennenoh wrote: Lots of programmers never need design patterns as they don't help much unless your architecting large apps, and lots of Flash programmers aren't developing those kinds of apps. Keeping your code organized however should be taught from day one and certain oop concepts are perfect for that. There are plenty of patterns that can apply well to small-scale projects: take undo. How would you cleanly support undo without Command? Other patterns like State, Adapter, Observer (especially to overcome the sadistic limitations of Flash's single callbacks -- MovieClip -- or single listeners -- MovieClipLoader)... all have uses even in a sporty little website tchotchke. Not every 'design pattern' is something like MVC or data mapping or dynamically-configured factories. On the other hand, I got your point. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/21/07, David Ngo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What kind of argument is that? I've never learned to ski and I was able to pick up snowboarding. One is not dependant upon the other. Sigh... I guess I should know better than attempting irony in an email. Of course you can learn how to snowboard without first learning how to ski. It's even easier. To claim otherwise would be silly. I think with OOP it's the same thing. Mark ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
That is the problem when you have to use someone's API and it does not follow standards. They probably wrote it before we know the right way to do getters and setters - or they never bothered to read up on the state of the art in programming. Ron T. Michael Keesey wrote: On 8/21/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myShape.x = 500; I hope that you meant myshape.setX(500); Huh? No, that's not part of the flash.display.Shape API. And while it's true that x in this context is actually not a true field, but a pair of methods (__get__x and __set__x, not getX and setX) disguised as a field, I think you can safely ignore that in an introductory class. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/21/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: T. Michael Keesey wrote: On 8/21/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myShape.x = 500; I hope that you meant myshape.setX(500); Huh? No, that's not part of the flash.display.Shape API. And while it's true that x in this context is actually not a true field, but a pair of methods (__get__x and __set__x, not getX and setX) disguised as a field, I think you can safely ignore that in an introductory class. That is the problem when you have to use someone's API and it does not follow standards. They probably wrote it before we know the right way to do getters and setters - or they never bothered to read up on the state of the art in programming. Uh, you do realize that is Adobe's own API, right? http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/2/langref/flash/display/Shape.html#propertySummary That is the proper way to do getters and setters in ActionScript (2.0 and 3.0). This isn't Java. -- T. Michael Keesey Director of Technology Exopolis, Inc. 2894 Rowena Avenue Ste. B Los Angeles, California 90039 ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript: patterns derail!
Alan MacDougall wrote: Dave Mennenoh wrote: Lots of programmers never need design patterns as they don't help much unless your architecting large apps, and lots of Flash programmers aren't developing those kinds of apps. Keeping your code organized however should be taught from day one and certain oop concepts are perfect for that. There are plenty of patterns that can apply well to small-scale projects: take undo. How would you cleanly support undo without Command? Other patterns like State, Adapter, Observer (especially to overcome the sadistic limitations of Flash's single callbacks -- MovieClip -- or single listeners -- MovieClipLoader)... all have uses even in a sporty little website tchotchke. Not every 'design pattern' is something like MVC or data mapping or dynamically-configured factories. On the other hand, I got your point. Design patterns are not some esoteric way of doing things. They are solutions to common programming situations that came up over and over again. For years, we all wrote our own way to accomplish these tasks. Finally some experienced guys looked at what they were doing and what other people were doing. They had a Holy Sh*t moment when they realized that they had 50 ways to do exactly the same thing. They looked at the various ways and tried to pick the best strategy. A design pattern book is not a road map to building an application. It is a collection of best practices for the tasks that come up all the time. It hard to imagine even a small program that could not use at least one of the design patterns that have been identified. It is hard to imagine a Flash program that would not be a candidate for several design patterns. A game with no Listener/Observer is hard to imagine. (How many onEnterFrames does it take to kill a program? ) How do you handle onLoad's famous scope? There is a design pattern for this and it gets explained every time a new flashcoder tries to read an XML file. You can probably find this in the archives once every 2 weeks. They do not call it a Design Pattern but it is. If you doubt the usefulness of Design Patterns, read Head First Design Patterns. You will read each section and sometimes be amazed at the simplicity of the solution and wonder why you never figured this out. In other sections you will say What is the big deal? I do it like this all the time. It is not magic or advanced. If a pattern was shown to a new programmer without giving it a fancy name, they would just accept it as the best way to do the task and would never give it moment's thought. If you were trying to get the class to build a game, you would be foolish not to explain the Observer pattern. It is very simple and the alternatives are often really ugly and overly complex and frustrate the best of us. Ron ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
T. Michael Keesey wrote: On 8/21/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: T. Michael Keesey wrote: On 8/21/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myShape.x = 500; I hope that you meant myshape.setX(500); Huh? No, that's not part of the flash.display.Shape API. And while it's true that x in this context is actually not a true field, but a pair of methods (__get__x and __set__x, not getX and setX) disguised as a field, I think you can safely ignore that in an introductory class. That is the problem when you have to use someone's API and it does not follow standards. They probably wrote it before we know the right way to do getters and setters - or they never bothered to read up on the state of the art in programming. Uh, you do realize that is Adobe's own API, right? I have been building RIAs in Flash since AS1. I am under no illusions about Macromedia. They wrote AS1without reading ECMA spec or even looking at Java. We were using Eclipse and talking about in this forum, 2 years before Macromedia adopted it. The lack of standardization in the old components and Classes is not something to emulate or teach as a good model. To be fair, they have really got a lot better once they realized that there is a strong community that uses Flash for building real applications that have to be robust and maintainable in the real world. Ron http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/2/langref/flash/display/Shape.html#propertySummary That is the proper way to do getters and setters in ActionScript (2.0 and 3.0). This isn't Java. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
If these students have no experience programming, you just can't start with OOP. They have no foundation to understand the concepts. You have to walk before you can run, and OOP is definitely runners territory. Students with no programming experience are barely crawling. Arrays, Strings, Objects, Functions, Variables - these things are your first steps. You can't learn those while learning about Classes, Inheritance, and Design Patterns. Those things are based on solid foundations. Anyone here who says they would have been better off if they learned OOP from the get-go is dismissing everything it took to get where they are. Procedural code has its purpose sometimes and knowing how and when to use it is important, especially in Flash. I disagree with the statement that AS2 is on the way out. Jesse Warden blogged about that very subject which mirrored my own feelings on the subject. AS2 will be around for some time to come. The fact is, AS3 is such a leap from AS2 most Flash developers will not be able to (or want to) make the leap. Only senior level coders will, and certain bright designer/coder types. Eventually, people might, but agencies will be able to turn out great Flash sites with AS2 (even AS1) for years to come. The fact is, you can still do a lot in Flash by hacking AS1 procedural code, and this skill is an absolute requirement in agency work where you're working with short timelines, ridiculous client changes throughout the process, and the site is a churn and burn never to be touched again after it goes live. AS2/AS1 is going to remain king in that very large sect of Flash development for some time to come. If you were teaching Java or Ruby, I would say go OOP right away. But Flash is only now becoming OOP strong and AS3, while a good step in the right direction, is not the absolute best OOP language to teach because of all the other things that make up Flash development that have less to do with Actionscript and more to do with Flash itself. Ruby is a fantastic OOP language, though it might be a bit heady for newbies. I think you should consider teaching programming basics, focusing on clean code, best practices, naming conventions, etc. and touch on OOP towards the end. The people who are most interested will seek out more information, but I think you will lose people if you try to teach OOP concepts right out the gate before they even know how to iterate through an Array, or before they know what a subroutine is. Steven Sacks Flash Maestro Los Angeles, CA -- blog: http://www.stevensacks.net ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Steven Sacks wrote: I think you should consider teaching programming basics, focusing on clean code, best practices, naming conventions, etc. and touch on OOP towards the end. The people who are most interested will seek out more information, but I think you will lose people if you try to teach OOP concepts right out the gate before they even know how to iterate through an Array, or before they know what a subroutine is. LISP? Just sayin... -Ricky ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
i think teaching someone OOP from the begining is not a bad idea, you are still teching them to code but around classes. you do not need to introduce more advanced concepts until later. the best free book i think is thinking in java by bruce eckel and should be easily adaptable for your needs. i also think as3 is a good place to start, you would be equipping them with a better language while still allowing them to do graphics. those who want to learn more coding will slot easier into languages like java, c# etc. On 8/20/07, Ricky Bacon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steven Sacks wrote: I think you should consider teaching programming basics, focusing on clean code, best practices, naming conventions, etc. and touch on OOP towards the end. The people who are most interested will seek out more information, but I think you will lose people if you try to teach OOP concepts right out the gate before they even know how to iterate through an Array, or before they know what a subroutine is. LISP? Just sayin... -Ricky ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- j:pn http://www.memorphic.com/news/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Thanks Ron, I think you've found my wavelength (as fluctuating as it might be). I agree on that patterns would be awesome to teach, as early as they can conceive what an object is. The book Objects First by Kolling is my inspiration for doing this, it's aimed at the right level. Take a game apart, understand the objects, understand the classes that make them up, tweak the classes, build some classes, inheritance, etc. I'll also take a look at Sandy, 3D would be so cool! If you have the time (I'm assuming you don't, so no pressure), could you teach me about how I would use intervals for something like a simple Paddle class in Pong? Just something for KeyListeners, to move the paddle object. This is one of the first lessons I would like to get across, using a class from the Library of a movie for two instances. After Pong I was going to move toward Space Invaders, to throw in Arrays and reinforce the class - objects relationship. Thanks again! Mike On 8/19/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might also want to look at Sandy. It is a 3D engine for Actionscript. Very easy to build 3D applications that might be fun for the kids. Check out Script_in_Action forum for resources and links. Mike Reilly wrote: Thanks so much to all of you for such quick responses. I'm sure my students will benefit from many of the links that you've already sent. Since I'm not the best at clarity when writing, I'll throw out what started this thinking. I read Andy Harris' Beginning Flash Game Programming For Dummies, and I think the level of that book was awesome for intro. I have also been using Greenfoot.org as a supplement to teach Java, as kids love games whether it's intro or more advanced (remember, these are 14-17 year olds, and we're trying to generate an interest in programming). So this semester I'll be trying to develop an OO approach, using Actionscript (can't install anything else without formal district approval). Some of the resources forwarded should be very helpful, and I truly appreciate all support. I'll be reading Moock's Essential ActionScript 2.0, combining it with Harris' Dummies, to create Essential Games for Dummies! On a serious note, how do you get an enter_frame event handler to work inside an AS file? It works but you shouldn't use it . Look at using intervals. Try not to teach bad programming practices to kids at that age. You might also want to read Heads Up Design Patterns just to find out the right way to do many things. It is oriented to Java but all relevant to ActionScript. Ron Thanks again, I won't bother you all much more. Please take a look at last year's kids work: www.nghsit.com/studyhall Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/20/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If these students have no experience programming, you just can't start with OOP. Sure you can. Just look at what Alan Kay did with kids and Squeak (essentially Smalltalk). Here's a good talk by him, btw, much about learning and computer/interface history: http://www.archive.org/details/AlanKeyD1987 http://www.archive.org/details/AlanKeyD1987_2 (Get the Mpeg2, it contains very old footage filmed off a screen) I disagree with the statement that AS2 is on the way out. That it'll take it some time to make it through the door doesn't mean it's not on the way out. Yes, some folks will use it for a long time to come, because of legacy code bases, admins refusing to allow FP9 on their systems, and unwillingness to learn. But those kids don't have a code base yet, they don't have corporate clients and they have to learn anyway. If you were teaching Java or Ruby, I would say go OOP right away. Because Java and Ruby don't have arrays? :) But Flash is only now becoming OOP strong and AS3, while a good step in the right direction, is not the absolute best OOP language to teach because of all the other things that make up Flash development that have less to do with Actionscript and more to do with Flash itself. Ruby is a fantastic OOP language, though it might be a bit heady for newbies. He's not teaching them Flash development, he'll be teaching them (OOP-) Programming and using ActionScript as an example. There's a difference. But you have a point, at least as long as we're talking about AS2. We still have a question open, and it explains why AS3 would have been more appropriate: On a serious note, how do you get an enter_frame event handler to work inside an AS file? If by AS file you mean a class instance where you would like to call a method called 'handleEnterFrame', here's how you'd do it with AS3 (from within the class, say, in the constructor): anyDisplayObject.addEventListener( Event.ENTER_FRAME, handleEnterFrame ); In AS2, it's a bit more complicated. If the class inherits from MovieClip and assigned to a clip in the library, then you can just give it a method called 'onEnterFrame'. Otherwise you have to deal with the scope, which caused problems for so many that they introduced Delegate to help you with it: anyMovieClip.onEnterFrame = Delegate.create( this. handleEnterFrame ); For AS2, keep in mind that you can have only one onEnterFrame per MovieClip, so if you have multiple instance that need the event, you have to have one MovieClip for each. Or write a class that relays the event to multiple listeners, essentially mimicking the behaviour AS3 would give you out of the box. (Btw, it may be a good idea to provide such a class to the students) Finally, the Bruce Eckel book Johannes mentioned is available online: http://www.mindview.net/Books/TIJ/ Regarding patterns, I would mention them but not put much emphasis on the subject, at least not if it's a beginner course. Anyway, I think Flash is a good choice. Mainly because you get to see results so quickly. It's very easy to make something appear and move it around, so you have a feeling of accomplishment very early. Mark On 8/20/07, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If these students have no experience programming, you just can't start with OOP. They have no foundation to understand the concepts. You have to walk before you can run, and OOP is definitely runners territory. Students with no programming experience are barely crawling. Arrays, Strings, Objects, Functions, Variables - these things are your first steps. You can't learn those while learning about Classes, Inheritance, and Design Patterns. Those things are based on solid foundations. Anyone here who says they would have been better off if they learned OOP from the get-go is dismissing everything it took to get where they are. Procedural code has its purpose sometimes and knowing how and when to use it is important, especially in Flash. I disagree with the statement that AS2 is on the way out. Jesse Warden blogged about that very subject which mirrored my own feelings on the subject. AS2 will be around for some time to come. The fact is, AS3 is such a leap from AS2 most Flash developers will not be able to (or want to) make the leap. Only senior level coders will, and certain bright designer/coder types. Eventually, people might, but agencies will be able to turn out great Flash sites with AS2 (even AS1) for years to come. The fact is, you can still do a lot in Flash by hacking AS1 procedural code, and this skill is an absolute requirement in agency work where you're working with short timelines, ridiculous client changes throughout the process, and the site is a churn and burn never to be touched again after it goes live. AS2/AS1 is going to remain king in that very large sect of Flash development for some time to come. If you were teaching Java or Ruby, I would say go OOP
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Mike Reilly wrote: Thanks Ron, I think you've found my wavelength (as fluctuating as it might be). I agree on that patterns would be awesome to teach, as early as they can conceive what an object is. The book Objects First by Kolling is my inspiration for doing this, it's aimed at the right level. Take a game apart, understand the objects, understand the classes that make them up, tweak the classes, build some classes, inheritance, etc. I like the coding techniques that are used in the patterns. It does show how a lot of functionality can be produced with minimal code by intelligent use of objects. I am not sure that I would teach them as Patterns. I would just use the patterns as examples of how to get things done. It is nice that they have names and everyone knows what you mean when you say decorator but I am not sure that the names are as important as knowing how to get things done well. Patterns are not separate from OOP, they are just best practices for using OOP in an intelligent way. The Head First Design Pattern book is very good in this regard and the examples are very short and use entertaining examples that everyone can understand - make a duck quack and fly - then throw in a rubber duck and see how little it takes to modify the duck objects to deal with squeaky, non-flying ducks. Their Decorator pattern makes a nice introduction into the power of objects which is a lot more concrete than a whole discussion about the theory. The examples are in Java so you have to make some small adjustments and you probably want to give them a MovieClip to draw on rather than a console to write on so your standard main test program will be different. If you are going to try to use games in Flash as the theme, you want to walk them through the Listener pattern early on since you will need this one to avoid a real mess in handling user events. I'll also take a look at Sandy, 3D would be so cool! If you have the time (I'm assuming you don't, so no pressure), could you teach me about how I would use intervals for something like a simple Paddle class in Pong? Just something for KeyListeners, to move the paddle object. Use events to find out about user inputs. Keys being released means the user wants something done. Use intervals to generate events that are time related (wake up every 1/x of a second to move the ball.) When you wake up, check the state of things, do what needs to be done (move the ball, update the clock or timer, ) and set a new interval. You can also do these things when the user presses a key, just cancel your pending interval and set a new one. If you use the Listener pattern it gets very easy to add functions to the list of things that need to get done when the central event handler wakes up or responds. This is one of the first lessons I would like to get across, using a class from the Library of a movie for two instances. After Pong I was going to move toward Space Invaders, to throw in Arrays and reinforce the class - objects relationship. rantTeach them about arrays of objects. Don't let them put anything else in an array. It would be nice to find a bunch of programmers that are surprised to find out that you can put numbers in an array rather than the current case where the opposite is true and people create horrible messes of parallel, multidimensional arrays when an array of objects would be much clearer and require a lot less code and infinitely less debugging time. /rant Thanks again! Mike On 8/19/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might also want to look at Sandy. It is a 3D engine for Actionscript. Very easy to build 3D applications that might be fun for the kids. Check out Script_in_Action forum for resources and links. Mike Reilly wrote: Thanks so much to all of you for such quick responses. I'm sure my students will benefit from many of the links that you've already sent. Since I'm not the best at clarity when writing, I'll throw out what started this thinking. I read Andy Harris' Beginning Flash Game Programming For Dummies, and I think the level of that book was awesome for intro. I have also been using Greenfoot.org as a supplement to teach Java, as kids love games whether it's intro or more advanced (remember, these are 14-17 year olds, and we're trying to generate an interest in programming). So this semester I'll be trying to develop an OO approach, using Actionscript (can't install anything else without formal district approval). Some of the resources forwarded should be very helpful, and I truly appreciate all support. I'll be reading Moock's Essential ActionScript 2.0, combining it with Harris' Dummies, to create Essential Games for Dummies! On a serious note, how do you get an enter_frame event handler to work inside an AS file? It works but you shouldn't use it . Look at using intervals. Try not to teach bad programming practices to kids at that age. You might also want
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Interesting thread. Please let me get back to work ! ;) In line with Steve Sacks' message, I can recommend Steve McConnell's Code Complete 2nd ed. It deals with best practices in general, and is well written. (http://cc2e.com/) However, pedagogically (not that I'm an expert), I think it's ok for Mike Reilly to whet the appetite of his students. Considering they're only in high school, they have a long road ahead, and lots of opportunity to learn other things. Norm Cousineau (Deseloper) -Original Message- From: Steven Sacks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 2:43 AM To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript If these students have no experience programming, you just can't start with OOP. They have no foundation to understand the concepts. You have to walk before you can run, and OOP is definitely runners territory. Students with no programming experience are barely crawling. Arrays, Strings, Objects, Functions, Variables - these things are your first steps. You can't learn those while learning about Classes, Inheritance, and Design Patterns. Those things are based on solid foundations. Anyone here who says they would have been better off if they learned OOP from the get-go is dismissing everything it took to get where they are. Procedural code has its purpose sometimes and knowing how and when to use it is important, especially in Flash. I disagree with the statement that AS2 is on the way out. Jesse Warden blogged about that very subject which mirrored my own feelings on the subject. AS2 will be around for some time to come. The fact is, AS3 is such a leap from AS2 most Flash developers will not be able to (or want to) make the leap. Only senior level coders will, and certain bright designer/coder types. Eventually, people might, but agencies will be able to turn out great Flash sites with AS2 (even AS1) for years to come. The fact is, you can still do a lot in Flash by hacking AS1 procedural code, and this skill is an absolute requirement in agency work where you're working with short timelines, ridiculous client changes throughout the process, and the site is a churn and burn never to be touched again after it goes live. AS2/AS1 is going to remain king in that very large sect of Flash development for some time to come. If you were teaching Java or Ruby, I would say go OOP right away. But Flash is only now becoming OOP strong and AS3, while a good step in the right direction, is not the absolute best OOP language to teach because of all the other things that make up Flash development that have less to do with Actionscript and more to do with Flash itself. Ruby is a fantastic OOP language, though it might be a bit heady for newbies. I think you should consider teaching programming basics, focusing on clean code, best practices, naming conventions, etc. and touch on OOP towards the end. The people who are most interested will seek out more information, but I think you will lose people if you try to teach OOP concepts right out the gate before they even know how to iterate through an Array, or before they know what a subroutine is. Steven Sacks Flash Maestro Los Angeles, CA -- blog: http://www.stevensacks.net ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
What is a subroutine? Not used in this millennium. Seems to be a concept from the distant past. Start with OOP. We did not get here by accident. It is easier. It is less prone to errors. It makes your coding examples much smaller and much easier to grasp. Their code exists in a small context. You can write the test programs to get them started and let the students start by programming simple classes that compile on their own and can be incorporated into your test environment which they do not have to deal with until you are ready to show them the object that uses their simple class. Define the interface that their code must implement (might as well get them used to programming to an interface), let them extend your interface. Show them how the interface is the contract between the user and the class. If you give them the interface class with lots of comments about the functionality required for each method, you have the description of the assignment. Ron Johannes Nel wrote: i think teaching someone OOP from the begining is not a bad idea, you are still teching them to code but around classes. you do not need to introduce more advanced concepts until later. the best free book i think is thinking in java by bruce eckel and should be easily adaptable for your needs. i also think as3 is a good place to start, you would be equipping them with a better language while still allowing them to do graphics. those who want to learn more coding will slot easier into languages like java, c# etc. On 8/20/07, Ricky Bacon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steven Sacks wrote: I think you should consider teaching programming basics, focusing on clean code, best practices, naming conventions, etc. and touch on OOP towards the end. The people who are most interested will seek out more information, but I think you will lose people if you try to teach OOP concepts right out the gate before they even know how to iterate through an Array, or before they know what a subroutine is. LISP? Just sayin... -Ricky ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
They do claim that men never pass the emotional age of 12 and I have with guys who were 5 with 30 years of experience.. So 4 and 14 are not so far apart (on the male side at least). T. Michael Keesey wrote: On 8/19/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of the Heads Up Design Patterns examples are fun and designed to appeal to the 14 year old in all of us. (How does your duck quack? What if it is a rubber duck?) 14-year-old or 4-year-old? ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
You can learn the basics while using OOP. It is just easier. You can start with simple objects and still write a complete piece of code that has a set of well-defined behaviours and can be stuck into a test program without having to deal with the whole nasty story at once. I am not sure how OOP eliminates procedural code unless procedural code is taken to mean spaghetti code where the execution path is unpredictable and every variable starts _root. It is hard to see how you have many classes with no properties so I think that the students will find out about Strings, etc. Some objects will need Arrays of other objects so I am pretty sure that you can get to Arrays at some point. Class methods have been known to have iterations in them so that can be covered. Might even get to recursion!!! Naming conventions are essential. Worthwhile to make sure that all of your examples are 100% correct and deduct bigtime for assignments with violations of conventions. This gets very important when you start to get into frameworks which use class inspection to find things. I would not worry about AS1 and maintaining other people's crappy code. If they are lucky, they will be too late into the fray and we will have fixed up all of the crap by then. Realistacally, it is unlikely that any of them will actually ever make a living from ActionScript programming since most of them will probably end up in other fields since it is a high-school not a university course. Ron Steven Sacks wrote: If these students have no experience programming, you just can't start with OOP. They have no foundation to understand the concepts. You have to walk before you can run, and OOP is definitely runners territory. Students with no programming experience are barely crawling. Arrays, Strings, Objects, Functions, Variables - these things are your first steps. You can't learn those while learning about Classes, Inheritance, and Design Patterns. Those things are based on solid foundations. Anyone here who says they would have been better off if they learned OOP from the get-go is dismissing everything it took to get where they are. Procedural code has its purpose sometimes and knowing how and when to use it is important, especially in Flash. I disagree with the statement that AS2 is on the way out. Jesse Warden blogged about that very subject which mirrored my own feelings on the subject. AS2 will be around for some time to come. The fact is, AS3 is such a leap from AS2 most Flash developers will not be able to (or want to) make the leap. Only senior level coders will, and certain bright designer/coder types. Eventually, people might, but agencies will be able to turn out great Flash sites with AS2 (even AS1) for years to come. The fact is, you can still do a lot in Flash by hacking AS1 procedural code, and this skill is an absolute requirement in agency work where you're working with short timelines, ridiculous client changes throughout the process, and the site is a churn and burn never to be touched again after it goes live. AS2/AS1 is going to remain king in that very large sect of Flash development for some time to come. If you were teaching Java or Ruby, I would say go OOP right away. But Flash is only now becoming OOP strong and AS3, while a good step in the right direction, is not the absolute best OOP language to teach because of all the other things that make up Flash development that have less to do with Actionscript and more to do with Flash itself. Ruby is a fantastic OOP language, though it might be a bit heady for newbies. I think you should consider teaching programming basics, focusing on clean code, best practices, naming conventions, etc. and touch on OOP towards the end. The people who are most interested will seek out more information, but I think you will lose people if you try to teach OOP concepts right out the gate before they even know how to iterate through an Array, or before they know what a subroutine is. Steven Sacks Flash Maestro Los Angeles, CA -- blog: http://www.stevensacks.net ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Mutimedia authoring tools have been object oriented for a long time because interactive multimedia requires a reasonable way to handle user-driven events. So there is no way to avoid working with objects. But what does it mean to start with OOP? or not start with OOP? I have a lot of sympathy for Steven's first point. Students who are new to programming have a lot to learn that we take for granted. It is an interesting problem: where to start so that students can learn in managable increments and can enjoy the process by having lots of opportunities to experiment with things that interest them. If you have them on your bookshelf have a look at the first chapter of Colin Moock's Essential ActionScript 3.0 and chapter 1 of his ActionScript for Flash MX. Now ask yourself which chapter you would prefer to start teaching students in high school with? In chapter 1 of ActionScript for Flash MX students see the basics of what some might call procedural programing, such as expressions and statements. They also read about handling events and scripting objects (Buttons and TextFields). By the end of the chapter they can build and experiment with a simple quiz. So after less than 40 pages they have something they can work with that does something. That's important. On the hand, Essential ActionScript 3 spends roughly 40 pages on packages, classes, objects, constructors, and other things. It takes about six chapters before you have much code you can really play with that has any impact on the user. (By the way, I'm not knocking Colin's books. They are brilliantly written and I plan on using the AS3 book to teach with next term.) Six chapters is alot to impose on high school students in the first week or two when you want to get them to start off doing something interesting. So what does it mean to start with OOP? My personal approach is to delay detailed teaching of packages, classes, inheritance, and so on. I usually start with creating classes that can be associated with movieclips or sprites in the library. I show students how to write methods that give sprites new behaviours. Writing individual methods involves procedural coding in response to events. Movement, drag and drop, hit detection etc. Then I provide them with enough scaffolding code to build something like a simple game. As the course progresses they write code that provide sprites with more complex behaviours and enhance games to, keep scores, add difficulty for the user, and add levels. Along the way they learn about objects, packages, classes and subclasses. I make sure they write nearly all their code in class files from beginning to end. In short I think you get a lot more mileage in the early going of a class by providing examples and scaffolding that students can start experimenting with early and parcel out higher-level object-oriented programming and design theory as you go. In some ways AS 2 and especially AS 3 make it harder for students to dive in quickly. But with a little care and good examples its possible to lower the barrier to experimentation - which I think is the essential thing. Also, maybe its worth saying that I've seen the results of too much theory up front on first year computer science students. Many are lost by the approach. They are unsure what classes to create and what code to put in each method to solve a problem. At any rate the essential thing is to start where you students are and not where you want them to be. Start with what they find interesting and not just what you find interesting. Yours truly, -Brian Ron Wheeler wrote: What is a subroutine? Not used in this millennium. Seems to be a concept from the distant past. Start with OOP. We did not get here by accident. It is easier. It is less prone to errors. It makes your coding examples much smaller and much easier to grasp. Their code exists in a small context. You can write the test programs to get them started and let the students start by programming simple classes that compile on their own and can be incorporated into your test environment which they do not have to deal with until you are ready to show them the object that uses their simple class. Define the interface that their code must implement (might as well get them used to programming to an interface), let them extend your interface. Show them how the interface is the contract between the user and the class. If you give them the interface class with lots of comments about the functionality required for each method, you have the description of the assignment. Ron Johannes Nel wrote: i think teaching someone OOP from the begining is not a bad idea, you are still teching them to code but around classes. you do not need to introduce more advanced concepts until later. the best free book i think is thinking in java by bruce eckel and should be easily adaptable for your needs. i also think as3 is a good place to start, you
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
At 11:43 PM -0700 8/19/07, Steven Sacks wrote: If these students have no experience programming, you just can't start with OOP. They have no foundation to understand the concepts. You have to walk before you can run, and OOP is definitely runners territory. Students with no programming experience are barely crawling. Arrays, Strings, Objects, Functions, Variables - these things are your first steps. You can't learn those while learning about Classes, Inheritance, and Design Patterns. Those things are based on solid foundations. This has been my experience teaching beginning programming to designers and artists. You would be surprised at how many people have problems grasping abstract concepts like objects or arrays, or translating their understanding of conditional logic, objects and the rest from their experience of the real world to the abstract world of code. --Roy -- - Studio Site Updated! http://www.roypardi.com/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
At 9:54 PM -0400 8/19/07, Mike Reilly wrote: I think we're on the same path Roy. While I have some future coders, this is Intro for 9th-11th grade kids, so my task is to teach but also whet their appetite for more. My deeper desire is to do it as OO as possible, to better prepare them for AP Comp Sci if they choose. I used to be the Co-Director of TechBoston up there in Boston, wish I were closer. I'm in Georgia now. If you're interested in doing more of an OO spin, let me know and I'll keep you in the loop. Hi Mike, I'd be interested to hear how it goes. In this class that is now finishing up most of the students are in the digital content creation areas, not programming and this is a required class. I realized at a certain point that there was a fundamental difference between my students who had self-selected to pursue the programming path and those who were in the class only because it was required. The former group are more comfortable with abstract thinking, have a greater tolerance patience for certain types of problem solving. They had major problems with basic things and too often resorted to memory rather than understanding (i.e they remember how a for loop should be set up without really getting it). These are bright folks so it's more that they have strengths in other areas. Programming is basically just writing- and some people take to it and find pleasure and creative opportunities through it and other people can do it if they have to, though struggle with organizing their ideas or being clear but find it difficult and frustrating. --Roy -- - Studio Site Updated! http://www.roypardi.com/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
What is a subroutine? Not used in this millennium. Seems to be a concept from the distant past. Distant past? Subroutines are the foundation of DRY and OOP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subroutine This is exactly what I mean by developers taking for granted what it took to get them where they are, and I think it proves my point. You learn something until you forget it, meaning it becomes second nature and you cease to think about it, it has become hardwired. So, while the term subroutine might feel like a concept from the distant past, that's because it is a concept from your distant past when you were first cutting your teeth that has become something that is now simply accepted knowledge, and you take for granted that you understand it. A subroutine is one of the foundational concepts of programming, especially OOP, and understanding subroutines and why they're used is fundamental to programming in general. Again, there are more to the basics of programming than just knowing Arrays, Strings, Numbers, math, iteration, etc. OOP is just not beginners territory. Intermediate at best. If you wanted to teach OOP at a conceptual level without digging into actual code, I could see a use for that, but you can't teach coding 101 while teaching a 300 level course. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I'm with Steven on this one. I, too, started way back in the days of procedural programming (Turbo Pascal, anyone?) and all of that taught me to understand the basic how's and why's of programming. I see a lot of new developers today who take what they read verbatim and apply it only because everyone else tells them they should. They don't necessarily understand the 'why' and, to me, that's just as important as learning about literals, syntax and objects. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 1:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript What is a subroutine? Not used in this millennium. Seems to be a concept from the distant past. Distant past? Subroutines are the foundation of DRY and OOP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subroutine This is exactly what I mean by developers taking for granted what it took to get them where they are, and I think it proves my point. You learn something until you forget it, meaning it becomes second nature and you cease to think about it, it has become hardwired. So, while the term subroutine might feel like a concept from the distant past, that's because it is a concept from your distant past when you were first cutting your teeth that has become something that is now simply accepted knowledge, and you take for granted that you understand it. A subroutine is one of the foundational concepts of programming, especially OOP, and understanding subroutines and why they're used is fundamental to programming in general. Again, there are more to the basics of programming than just knowing Arrays, Strings, Numbers, math, iteration, etc. OOP is just not beginners territory. Intermediate at best. If you wanted to teach OOP at a conceptual level without digging into actual code, I could see a use for that, but you can't teach coding 101 while teaching a 300 level course. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Steven Sacks wrote: A subroutine is one of the foundational concepts of programming, especially OOP Right on, Steven. We call them functions or methods now. Subroutine is simply an older name for a very current concept. There are some advantages to having been a programmer since 1980. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
OOP might seem easy to understand to people who understand it, but how can you expect anyone to think abstractly about concepts they don't even understand at a concrete level? If this was a class of people who understood basic programming but had no OOP experience, then I'd say sure give it a shot, but these are non-programmers. There are classes that require abstract thinking by students on subjects that they have a solid foundation on already, and those classes can be very challenging for some people. Attempting to explain the benefits of inheritance to somebody who doesn't even understand the difference between indexed and associative arrays (or even what they are) is pointless. You can't teach chromatic scales to somebody who is just learning to read sheet music. You can't teach iambic pentameter to somebody who is just learning how to speak. You can't teach calculus to somebody who is just learning algebra. You can't teach OOP to somebody who is just learning what variables and functions are. OOP is not a foundation for programming, it's a programming paradigm. You can't look at different paradigms if you don't know even know what you're looking at in the first place. It's a topic you don't get into until you're at least intermediate level, and a topic you don't truly grasp well until you've been doing it for awhile (i.e. senior level). ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
You can simplify it by saying A subroutine is a function that is called by another function. But, how can you explain the concept of a subroutine to somebody who doesn't even know what a function is? While the term subroutine has fallen out of popular use, I know what it is and what it means without even thinking about it. It's that type of foundation that is required for learning OOP. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I came at software from the electronics upwards, and maybe because of that I sometimes don't see the woods for the trees. If these kids get to handle objects in a more natural way without being concerned about what they are made of they might get a better feel for OOP. Also, in today's world it's more important to learn how to learn and go for the detail as you need it. The most important thing is to grab their interest and let their motivation kick in. All the same I take your point about the need for basics. Many people here in the UK know how to handle software but are unfamilar with files and folders and so come unstuck. John - Original Message - From: Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript OOP might seem easy to understand to people who understand it, but how can you expect anyone to think abstractly about concepts they don't even understand at a concrete level? If this was a class of people who understood basic programming but had no OOP experience, then I'd say sure give it a shot, but these are non-programmers. There are classes that require abstract thinking by students on subjects that they have a solid foundation on already, and those classes can be very challenging for some people. Attempting to explain the benefits of inheritance to somebody who doesn't even understand the difference between indexed and associative arrays (or even what they are) is pointless. You can't teach chromatic scales to somebody who is just learning to read sheet music. You can't teach iambic pentameter to somebody who is just learning how to speak. You can't teach calculus to somebody who is just learning algebra. You can't teach OOP to somebody who is just learning what variables and functions are. OOP is not a foundation for programming, it's a programming paradigm. You can't look at different paradigms if you don't know even know what you're looking at in the first place. It's a topic you don't get into until you're at least intermediate level, and a topic you don't truly grasp well until you've been doing it for awhile (i.e. senior level). ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I started in the industry as a t.a. for a graduate course in programming...the research as well as my own personal experience suggests that younger people tend to learn the semantics and nuance of object oriented programming much easier than older adults...with that said..AS1 or even JavaScript for that matter actually provides a suitable introduction to OOP on some level...while still being heavily steeped in the procedural paradigm...i would start there let them build a few things that way then expand on the concept of OOp from there...after all...the most important thing is the fundamentals...no matter how the discipline evolves...it evolves from the fundamentals cheers p On 8/19/07, Mike Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there - I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so. For example, my first game would be a Pong copy. Lots of basics in there to learn the environment, basic principles, etc. So, I was wondering if anyone out there knew of good resources, wanted to contribute (hell, I'll give you all the credit, you can write a book, etc.), collaborate, share. I've search most of the tutorial sites, but most code is not a great OO example for Flash games due to little OO, or too much complexity for the beginner. Your input is welcome, rock on. Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
[p e r c e p t i c o n] wrote: AS1 or even JavaScript for that matter actually provides a suitable introduction to OOP on some level Oof. I agree with most of what you said except for AS1 being a suitable introduction to OOP. I consider AS1's OOP model an abomination. You can write OOP in AS1 if you work really hard, and don't let any other programmers get their hands on it, but it's way, way too easy to break encapsulation. AS2's OOP implementation is light years ahead of AS1, and AS3, from what I've read, is even better. Plus, AS2's class approach is much more standard than the AS1 prototype approach. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
hi Kerry, i understand your point, but i found that when teach students how to use an object and what's contained in an object first, then the more conceptual ideas come easier...of course every class and every student is different... p On 8/20/07, Kerry Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [p e r c e p t i c o n] wrote: AS1 or even JavaScript for that matter actually provides a suitable introduction to OOP on some level Oof. I agree with most of what you said except for AS1 being a suitable introduction to OOP. I consider AS1's OOP model an abomination. You can write OOP in AS1 if you work really hard, and don't let any other programmers get their hands on it, but it's way, way too easy to break encapsulation. AS2's OOP implementation is light years ahead of AS1, and AS3, from what I've read, is even better. Plus, AS2's class approach is much more standard than the AS1 prototype approach. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
http://www.debreuil.com/docs/ch01_Intro.htm http://www.kirupa.com/developer/oop2/AS2OOPindex.htm --- http://proto.layer51.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I think both sides of this debate have some valid points, although I'd
lean a lot more strongly toward the teach OOP later approach. But
it's still possible to create OOP code from the start in AS2 or AS3.
The fundamentals of programming are variables, expressions, control
structures, and methods/functions/subroutines. In theory, you could
start teaching about variables with a pretty simple class like so:
package {
class MyProgram {
function MyProgram() {
var text:String = Hello, world!;
trace(text);
}
}
}
At this stage there'd be no point in explaining what the package,
class, or function lines actually do--just say, Don't worry about it;
we'll get to that later. I think it would be pretty easy to just
focus on the lines within the constructor. Once they have variables,
expressions, and control structures down, you can introduce the idea
of adding other functions. Once that's ingrained (maybe by the
beginning of an intermediate class) you can start to show how code can
be divided into classes and packages, how functions can have different
scopes, etc., and they won't be totally weirded out by the new
structure.
Just my thoughts. In the end it probably doesn't make much difference
whether you introduce the concepts via timeline code or simple, single
classes, as above. The core concepts being presented would be the
same, it's just a matter of whether you want to introduce them to the
environment of OOP earlier or later. In either case, the concepts of
OOP should come later.
--
T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology
Exopolis, Inc.
2894 Rowena Avenue Ste. B
Los Angeles, California 90039
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
[p e r c e p t i c o n] wrote: i understand your point, but i found that when teach students how to use an object and what's contained in an object first, then the more conceptual ideas come easier Ok, I'll buy that. Not to be argumentative--just curious--how do you find the AS1 prototype model easier to understand than the class/object model? I'll admit to having a strong bias for the class model from my time with C++ and Lingo, and having a tough time when first introduced to the prototype model. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
i guess it depends on where you begin...i think special attention has to be paid to as1's ability to add variables and function dynamically because it's at once very powerful and in the hands of someone looking to expand their knowledge of programming and programming languages very misleading because most languages don't make it that easy to do that sort of thing... but, it's still a bit easier to explain prototype after having explained how to use variables and functions, then how to attach them to objects like moviclips, than it is to explain the relationship of class/encapsulation/inheritence/polymorphism...ooops did i say polymorphism in relation to actionscript?...well ok let's say interface... my point is that these are higher level concepts that are much easier to grasp if you have the fundamentals of vars/functions/scope i came from c++ as well ...the concept of adding vars and functions dynamically was very alien,yet liberating...and protoype just confused me because i can be thick when i'm rushing to get a project done, but everyone i know who came over from lingo has had a very hard time with actionscript, oddly, i couldn't learn lingo...i tried several times and never quite caught on... all in all i too am biased towards the class model, but when people ask me if they should learn c or c++ first i always say learn c first... regards p On 8/20/07, Kerry Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [p e r c e p t i c o n] wrote: i understand your point, but i found that when teach students how to use an object and what's contained in an object first, then the more conceptual ideas come easier Ok, I'll buy that. Not to be argumentative--just curious--how do you find the AS1 prototype model easier to understand than the class/object model? I'll admit to having a strong bias for the class model from my time with C++ and Lingo, and having a tough time when first introduced to the prototype model. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
[p e r c e p t i c o n] wrote: i guess it depends on where you begin...i think special attention has to be paid to as1's ability to add variables and function dynamically I agree with most everything you say, but that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the ability to add variables and functionality dynamically is AS1's weakest point as far as OOP implementation. I can think of no easier way to break encapsulation. But I do agree that it's very powerful, much like Darth Vader ;-) everyone i know who came over from lingo has had a very hard time with actionscript Except me ^_^ With apologies to all my Director friends on this list, I find ActionScript a far superior OOP model than Lingo. The only problems I'm having are with Flash itself, not AS. The standard set--scope, components, depths. oddly, i couldn't learn lingo...i tried several times and never quite caught on... It took me years to become truly proficient. Even after 10 years doing mostly Director, there are still things that I haven't explored. all in all i too am biased towards the class model, but when people ask me if they should learn c or c++ first i always say learn c first... I feel the same way. C gives you a feeling for the nitty-gritty of the computer. I use C++ now, but I did a lot of C first (and Assembler before that). Can you imagine writing a C library to display Chinese characters on English Windows 3.1? I would have died if it hadn't been for Paetzold. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I feel the same way. C gives you a feeling for the nitty-gritty of the computer. I use C++ now, but I did a lot of C first (and Assembler before that). Can you imagine writing a C library to display Chinese characters on English Windows 3.1? I would have died if it hadn't been for Paetzold. here here! cheers p ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Mike Reilly wrote: I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so I'd recommend two books, both by Colin Moock, both published by O'Reilly. First read ActionScript for Flash MX: The Definitive Guide, then Essential ActionScript 2.0. The first one is an excellent introduction to coding in Flash. It covers essential things like levels vs. layers. It also has an excellent reference for Flash commands and classes. Some of the ActionScript in that one is a bit dated--a lot is based on AS 1. I'd skim over the code examples, because AS 2 is a very different model. Basically, you can write OOP in AS 1, with some difficulty, while AS 2 is OOP-oriented. The second book has excellent coverage of OOP and its AS 2 implementation. Start with those two, and you really can't go wrong. There are a lot of other good books, but I consider those the cream of the crop. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
At 8:19 PM -0400 8/19/07, Mike Reilly wrote: Hi there - I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so. For example, my first game would be a Pong copy. Lots of basics in there to learn the environment, basic principles, etc. Hi Mike, I'm teaching an AS 2 class for non-programmers at Northeastern this Summer (they haven't upgraded yet either). I use Pong as a basic example (and then beat it to death.. ;-) Not true OOP with this group but I introduce the ideas. The class site is here: http://roypardi.com/neu_summer/ - maybe this will give you some ideas of what to do (or not to do..). --Roy -- - Studio Site Updated! http://www.roypardi.com/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Hi Mike, I don't have exactly what you're looking for but hopefully it can help a bit. I am working on an AS3 version/rewrite of my game design demystified series of books. That won't be out for a long time, but you can lots of game related code from physics to AI on my blog. For the most part it is AS3, but there is some AS2 as well. Here is the link: http://jobemakar.blogspot.com I wish you luck in finding the right materials for your class! Jobe Makar http://www.electrotank.com http://www.electro-server.com phone: 252-627-8026 mobile: 919-609-0408 fax: 919-882-1121 - Original Message - From: Mike Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 8:19 PM Subject: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript Hi there - I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so. For example, my first game would be a Pong copy. Lots of basics in there to learn the environment, basic principles, etc. So, I was wondering if anyone out there knew of good resources, wanted to contribute (hell, I'll give you all the credit, you can write a book, etc.), collaborate, share. I've search most of the tutorial sites, but most code is not a great OO example for Flash games due to little OO, or too much complexity for the beginner. Your input is welcome, rock on. Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). You don't have to limit yourself to AS2 just because your school's Flash version isn't CS3 yet. If you plan to go the OOP route, and Pong specifically, there probably won't be that much in terms of timeline animation anyway. You'll have graphics for the paddles, the ball and the score. That'll pretty much be it, the rest will be code. You don't need the Flash IDE for that. I'd recommend you have a look at the Flex 2 SDK (or even haXe[.org]). There are several reasons why I believe that it is an alternative you should consider: AS2 is on the way out, AS3 will stay. AS3's API is more consistent. AS3 is compiled for the new (much faster) VM, which is a big advantage for games. Finally, and this is the most important reason IMHO, the Flex 2 SDK is free, so your students can (legally) install it at home. Mark On 8/20/07, Mike Reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there - I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so. For example, my first game would be a Pong copy. Lots of basics in there to learn the environment, basic principles, etc. So, I was wondering if anyone out there knew of good resources, wanted to contribute (hell, I'll give you all the credit, you can write a book, etc.), collaborate, share. I've search most of the tutorial sites, but most code is not a great OO example for Flash games due to little OO, or too much complexity for the beginner. Your input is welcome, rock on. Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Hi Mike, you've hit on an interesting dilema. Most Flash developers are to a greater degree, self taught. This is both a blessing and a curse. The skill level, and by extension, the development methodologies put in to practice in the real world range from basic, timeline procedural, to over engineered, pattern based pedantic dogma OO. I'd recommend pragmatism. There are a number of excellent books on Actionscript and OO methodologies and actionscript and patterns. Given the nature of Flash, the need to enforce strict pattern based solutions is limited but the need to enforce good OO best practices and code is essential. I personally can't say I have ever come across a holy grail actionscript OO site, but there are many good blogs out there that cover the info you will need (there just a bit scattered). The best advise I can give you is to google what you're looking for - like the rest of us ;) lol But if you want to try blogs, then here's a couple of reliable ones: Grant Skinner - http://www.gskinner.com/blog/ Colin Moock - http://www.moock.org/ Keith Peters - http://www.bit-101.com/blog/ Aral Balkan - http://aralbalkan.com/ Guy Watson- http://www.flashguru.co.uk/ Richard Leggett - http://www.richardleggett.co.uk/blog/index.php There are many many others, but that should keep you going for a while. Incidentally, if you're interested in teaching actionscript in a games environment, you could do worse than have a look at the Nintendo Wii's flash support. It's pretty easy and well documented on line in many sites. It'd certainly make it popular and topical for the class and give you an excuse to get a Wii in. Sean www.flashcoder.net/blog Hi there - I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so. For example, my first game would be a Pong copy. Lots of basics in there to learn the environment, basic principles, etc. So, I was wondering if anyone out there knew of good resources, wanted to contribute (hell, I'll give you all the credit, you can write a book, etc.), collaborate, share. I've search most of the tutorial sites, but most code is not a great OO example for Flash games due to little OO, or too much complexity for the beginner. Your input is welcome, rock on. Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But if you want to try blogs, then here's a couple of reliable ones: Grant Skinner - http://www.gskinner.com/blog/ Colin Moock - http://www.moock.org/ Keith Peters - http://www.bit-101.com/blog/ Aral Balkan - http://aralbalkan.com/ Guy Watson- http://www.flashguru.co.uk/ Richard Leggett - http://www.richardleggett.co.uk/blog/index.php Yeah, right -- that's what his post was about in the first place. :) Adding to the list, I came across this the other day -- well explained, plus some really pretty interactive examples: http://lab.polygonal.de/category/data-structures/ Mark ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
I think we're on the same path Roy. While I have some future coders, this is Intro for 9th-11th grade kids, so my task is to teach but also whet their appetite for more. My deeper desire is to do it as OO as possible, to better prepare them for AP Comp Sci if they choose. I used to be the Co-Director of TechBoston up there in Boston, wish I were closer. I'm in Georgia now. If you're interested in doing more of an OO spin, let me know and I'll keep you in the loop. Thanks! Mike On 8/19/07, Roy Pardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 8:19 PM -0400 8/19/07, Mike Reilly wrote: Hi there - I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so. For example, my first game would be a Pong copy. Lots of basics in there to learn the environment, basic principles, etc. Hi Mike, I'm teaching an AS 2 class for non-programmers at Northeastern this Summer (they haven't upgraded yet either). I use Pong as a basic example (and then beat it to death.. ;-) Not true OOP with this group but I introduce the ideas. The class site is here: http://roypardi.com/neu_summer/ - maybe this will give you some ideas of what to do (or not to do..). --Roy -- - Studio Site Updated! http://www.roypardi.com/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Hi Mike, I do a University course for New Media students that might be of interest. You can still see the old AS2 notes here: https://my.ryerson.ca/bbcswebdav/users/blesser/Flash/FPN537/ The current site is all AS2 but I am in the midst of rewriting it to AS3 for the fall. If you think it is useful I'll leave the old AS2 site in place for a while. Feel free to grab anything that you think might help. Yours truly, -Brian Mike Reilly wrote: Hi there - I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so. For example, my first game would be a Pong copy. Lots of basics in there to learn the environment, basic principles, etc. So, I was wondering if anyone out there knew of good resources, wanted to contribute (hell, I'll give you all the credit, you can write a book, etc.), collaborate, share. I've search most of the tutorial sites, but most code is not a great OO example for Flash games due to little OO, or too much complexity for the beginner. Your input is welcome, rock on. Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- __ Brian Lesser Assistant Director, Application Development and Integration Computing and Communications Services Ryerson University 350 Victoria St. Toronto, Ontario Phone: (416) 979-5000 ext. 6835 M5B 2K3Fax: (416) 979-5220 Office: POD?? E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Enter through LB99) Web: http://www.ryerson.ca/~blesser __ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Thanks so much to all of you for such quick responses. I'm sure my students will benefit from many of the links that you've already sent. Since I'm not the best at clarity when writing, I'll throw out what started this thinking. I read Andy Harris' Beginning Flash Game Programming For Dummies, and I think the level of that book was awesome for intro. I have also been using Greenfoot.org as a supplement to teach Java, as kids love games whether it's intro or more advanced (remember, these are 14-17 year olds, and we're trying to generate an interest in programming). So this semester I'll be trying to develop an OO approach, using Actionscript (can't install anything else without formal district approval). Some of the resources forwarded should be very helpful, and I truly appreciate all support. I'll be reading Moock's Essential ActionScript 2.0, combining it with Harris' Dummies, to create Essential Games for Dummies! On a serious note, how do you get an enter_frame event handler to work inside an AS file? Thanks again, I won't bother you all much more. Please take a look at last year's kids work: www.nghsit.com/studyhall Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
You might also want to look at Sandy. It is a 3D engine for Actionscript. Very easy to build 3D applications that might be fun for the kids. Check out Script_in_Action forum for resources and links. Mike Reilly wrote: Thanks so much to all of you for such quick responses. I'm sure my students will benefit from many of the links that you've already sent. Since I'm not the best at clarity when writing, I'll throw out what started this thinking. I read Andy Harris' Beginning Flash Game Programming For Dummies, and I think the level of that book was awesome for intro. I have also been using Greenfoot.org as a supplement to teach Java, as kids love games whether it's intro or more advanced (remember, these are 14-17 year olds, and we're trying to generate an interest in programming). So this semester I'll be trying to develop an OO approach, using Actionscript (can't install anything else without formal district approval). Some of the resources forwarded should be very helpful, and I truly appreciate all support. I'll be reading Moock's Essential ActionScript 2.0, combining it with Harris' Dummies, to create Essential Games for Dummies! On a serious note, how do you get an enter_frame event handler to work inside an AS file? It works but you shouldn't use it . Look at using intervals. Try not to teach bad programming practices to kids at that age. You might also want to read Heads Up Design Patterns just to find out the right way to do many things. It is oriented to Java but all relevant to ActionScript. Ron Thanks again, I won't bother you all much more. Please take a look at last year's kids work: www.nghsit.com/studyhall Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
Mike Reilly wrote: I think we're on the same path Roy. While I have some future coders, this is Intro for 9th-11th grade kids, so my task is to teach but also whet their appetite for more. My deeper desire is to do it as OO as possible, to better prepare them for AP Comp Sci if they choose. I used to be the Co-Director of TechBoston up there in Boston, wish I were closer. I'm in Georgia now. If you're interested in doing more of an OO spin, let me know and I'll keep you in the loop. There is no reason not to follow OOP principles to the hilt. You have all of the essential structures in ActionScript. You might also try to explain MVC and show how this helps simplify programming. MVC and OOP will give your students a really good way to get a lot done with a little bit of code. Some of the Heads Up Design Patterns examples are fun and designed to appeal to the 14 year old in all of us. (How does your duck quack? What if it is a rubber duck?) Ron Thanks! Mike On 8/19/07, Roy Pardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 8:19 PM -0400 8/19/07, Mike Reilly wrote: Hi there - I'm a high school teacher who's decided to teach Intro to Programming using Actionscript (2.0 for now, waiting for the school to upgrade). I'd prefer to take an OO approach, and use games in doing so. For example, my first game would be a Pong copy. Lots of basics in there to learn the environment, basic principles, etc. Hi Mike, I'm teaching an AS 2 class for non-programmers at Northeastern this Summer (they haven't upgraded yet either). I use Pong as a basic example (and then beat it to death.. ;-) Not true OOP with this group but I introduce the ideas. The class site is here: http://roypardi.com/neu_summer/ - maybe this will give you some ideas of what to do (or not to do..). --Roy -- - Studio Site Updated! http://www.roypardi.com/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Intro to OOP using ActionScript
On 8/19/07, Ron Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of the Heads Up Design Patterns examples are fun and designed to appeal to the 14 year old in all of us. (How does your duck quack? What if it is a rubber duck?) 14-year-old or 4-year-old? -- Mike Keesey ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
