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