Dan, Do you have a citation for this/these??
Certainly, the articles by/on Decker I've read. I also read a bunch on other (Delphi-like maybe? I could dig up citations if anyone's interested) environments... black box vs. transparent box vs. zipper... etc. ... I now cannot recall the name of the fellow who is the "biggie" in novice programming psychology for ACM, but have read his stuff as well. It seems to be a bit of an issue in CS-education: apparently, there was a semi-recent decision made to switch from a teaching & learning-friendly language (Pascal) to a "real-world" get-me-a job langauge (C++) with respect to CSAB accreditation-speak. I'm not trying to put you on the spot; merely, I do try to stay current with the research on this issue and apparently missed this/these. I'll definitely look up the book you've referenced. Thanks, Judy On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Dan Shafer wrote: > Judy.... > > I thnk the research is a tad mixed on the subject. I remember a wonderful > book back in the mid- to late 80's called "A Small Matter of Programming" by > Bonnie Nardi, an extremely bright researcher in end-user programming. Excel > macros -- which I'd argue are among the most obtuse "languages" on the > programming planet -- rate very high with inventive user programmers despite > their complete lack of English-like syntax or rationale. > > I thnk your point in general is well taken but the exceptoins are > mind-blowing. > > On 7/9/06, Judy Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > And, yet, the literature seems clear that the best languages for learning > > programming are those which are the simplest and employ natural-language > > where possible. Those employing magical black-boxes are the least > > desirable/effective from a 'learning to program' standpoint. > > > > What is nice about Rev and has always been nice about Hypercard was what > > some may well consider 'stooping to kindergarten'-level: enabling people > > to be minimally and comprehensibly successful with a minimal amount of > > time invested; and that such does indeed seem to encourage a further time > > investment. > > > > Judy > > > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Stephen Barncard wrote: > > > > > Hey we program, and we use code. What's so technical about that? > > > > > > I don't think Rev has to stoop to kindergarten level either, nor > > > strive to be the buddy of non-technicals. Programming with a good > > > tool is by nature technical. At some point words have to be used to > > > describe things, and these words already exist. > > > > > > I'd hate to have to use terms like "put the white box in here and the > > > other one over there...." > > > > _______________________________________________ > > use-revolution mailing list > > [email protected] > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > > subscription preferences: > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author > http://www.shafermedia.com > Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought" > >From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
