|
I agree. Strong typing, although initially confusing when first encountered makes for a clearer understanding of things in the long term. It's also easier to temporarily unlearn it for scripting languages, than to go the otherway around.
|
|
|
|
|
My kid has taken some classes in writing mods for Minecraft (Java).
MIT uses Python for its non-programming students.
One of the main reasons I bought a MicroVAX is because VAX BASIC still has interactive mode.  Just how I was introduced to programming in 1983. ![Jig | [Dance]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/jig.gif)
Personally, I would avoid scripting languages and OOP-only languages.
|
|
|
|
|
I would go with Compiled languages. Possibly with native ones like C/C++.
The process of Compile / Build to obj. Make to EXE everything goes with an edible flow. You don't need to learn a new framework to understand these.
And ultimately, to explain how these Exe's get executed on a CPU, you can explain it fairly straight, without the circus of JVMs/ Run times etc.
Having said all these, The ducktypes? There's nothing much to explain, you could just say that the last part of the pervious model is getting done line by line. Basically an Interpreted ones vs Compiled ones.
If you just want to learn Programming language, I would go with Scripts/Interpreters. The whole developement set up is not required. All you need is a browser and a notepad to start with.
But if you want to teach the whole of it, then we should not for the duck-type ones as you call it. Compiled ones do best there.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
For a kid, the new Micro:bit initiative looks very interesting: BBC micro:bit : Create code[^]
The MS block editor makes syntax errors a thing of the past, and lest them concentrate on the essentials of development without worrying about the specifics. When they have got them down well, they will (hopefully) want to move to a more complex language which lets them control the code better (and the structure of the block editor would make a transition to C# fairly painless).
Block editor[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
i'd go with the simplest dynamically-typed scripting language i could find. introducing the language plus a compiler & linker is just too much at once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would start with a high-level language, either dynamically or statically typed. From your list probably Python or C#. The idea is to get up and running fairly easily. Then, after a while, depending on interest and if you want to dig deeper, try something lower-level like C.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Programming is a lot like picking at a scab. You probably shouldn't but you inevitably do.
Does anybody set out to pick at scabs? I suppose a startled would-be psychologist. Notices all the blood that pours out, realizes it's not as painful as he imagined such a flow to be, and then wonders why he would need to stop it now that it's continuing.
Let me ask you a question. When you think of Python, do you shiver a little?
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote: When you think of Python, do you shiver a little?
I've been doing some Python programming for a BeagleBone SBC. And yes, I shiver.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Javascript
Did you say "duck-typed" or "duct-taped"?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who has actually taught people to code...
First, everyone is different.
Second, what is usually lacking is are students that understand how to solve a problem!
The answer is always, it depends. I had some kids who developed Lego NXT apps
as their first programming with a GUI.
I had college kids learning Java. (They just wanted to pass the class, mostly).
What is important, to me. Is an expressive set of problems the student is interested in solving.
Teaching them to read/interpret code first, then to write code.
I found that giving students a working solution, and having them make small changes was the fastest way to wet their whistles. The naturals would excel on their own pretty quickly. The others started to pick up the "Oh, if I change this, this changes".
Then from there it gets easier, because they have a basis of the language and how to make it run.
|
|
|
|
|
First languages I ever learned were the Motorola M6800 and DEC PDP-8 & 12 assembly languages in the late 1970's.
The first language I ever did anything actually useful to anyone else in was REXX in 1980. It's a duct-typed script language. I created a questionnaire application used in rating courses and instructors at the IBM Ed center.
I loved REXX. The datatype of a variable was context-of-use-dependent. If x contained "100" then x would (automagically) be a string in string situations, or an integer or float in those situations.
I still think it's a pity it never became mainstream.
If someone is learning programming... hmmmm
My bottom line criterion would be: least distraction from the learning experience
My REXX experience (and perhaps that of millions of MS-DOS BASIC users) indicates to me that the advantages of duct-typed script languages for neophytes are:
- all you need is a text editor (IDE's can be learned later!)
- the runtime environment can be simplified (the person isn't also, say, learning windowing concepts)
- produces feedback for their efforts quickly (the experience of delight is important I think)
- strong typing can be learned later
- they are imperative and that form of programming is (IMO) more intuitive and therefore easier to grasp.
Cheers,
Mike Fidler
"I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright
"I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright
"I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a slightly different perspective on this. I think the language matters less and the environment matters more. In other words, to an absolute beginner, the important thing is understanding what the cryptic words and squiggly characters are going to do within that little world the language resides in and how the language's actions are useful to them.
The problem with most contrived tutorials like "make an array of addresses" or "make the kitty move across the screen until it hits the side wall" is that it's not something they want or need to do and their interest wanes quickly. That 2nd reference isn't a dig at Scratch at all, because I think Scratch is awesome, and the best way I've seen to help young kids understand loops and if/then logic gates. However, if Scratch doesn't ignite more curiosity like, "how can I make the kitty navigate through a maze?", then they're not going to experiment more.
If it's a kid and they're into Minecraft, then learning how to write a Minecraft mod is a perfect task that will keep their experimental fires burning because they want to see that mod work.
Another possibility is writing a basic iPhone app, because it's exciting being able to show your friends, "look at that app in the App Store, I wrote that!", even if the app is just a button you push and it shows a smiley face.
Here's something that sparked my son's curiosity: He was trying to figure out why a Javascript game on a website wasn't working right, so I said, "let's check out the code and see if we can figure out what's going on," and he was blown away that you could click View Source and start poking around with the HTML and Javascript. It really piqued his curiosity about how you can make web pages do things.
If it's an adult and they want to automate some tasks in Word or Excel, then showing them how to write some VBA code is a good intro to programming.
Regarding a specific language, I think Ruby is a pretty nice language, and for a beginner it's nice that it doesn't require semicolons. I don't know Python well but it's nice that it also doesn't require semicolons. Python does require indents/whitespace--not sure if that is confusing or helpful to a beginner? I learned Perl and VB6 at the same time and I remember the case-sensitivity of Perl confused me and it was nice that VB didn't have that, but I also remember that VB's linebreak requirements (like you have to say "If a=b Then" and not "If a=b --linebreak-- Then") confused me and I liked that Perl was fine with splitting things onto a new line.
One neat thing about Python is that it's used in a number of programs for scripting, like the free image-editing program GIMP. Being able to write a Python script to resize or rotate a batch of photos for example would be a cool and useful thing to teach. The Raspberry Pi board also uses Python scripting, which is another possible platform to teach it.
You could definitely just do Python scripting in a terminal window to manipulate a text file, but that's where I think it could get boring to a beginner unless they could see real-world possibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
First, understand that dynamic vs static typing and script vs compiled are NOT tied together.
Second, I recommend losing the pejorative terms such as "duck-typed" as well.
Beyond that, it would depend more on the student's goals and objectives. If they are hoping to become professional developers, then it would help to look at what the local market (or market they want to work in) is looking for. If they are simply looking to play around, then you need to ask what platform they most like, and more.
|
|
|
|
|
Having actually done some teaching of programming to high school kids, I can attest that Python is a nice language to start with. In particular, Python notebooks are a great way to get your feet wet in programming, and teachers can put together nice "cheat sheets" that are actually executable using the notebooks.
I would stay far away from any compile-link-run environment. Goodness, why inflict that on any beginner when there are such nicer options around.
|
|
|
|
|
SirMungus wrote: Goodness, why inflict that on any beginner when there are such nicer options around.
Well, in C# it's pretty transparent, but you make a good point.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
start with algebra, then work from there, and aim to teach a language, but have learned the concepts, to which can be applied to multiple languages.
|
|
|
|
|
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I vote for the non-existing language that combines:
- Has optional types like PHP5
- Object oriented programming and meta programming like C++
- Dynamic like Javascript
- Have syntax similar to C
- Natively provided libraries are documented like Java
I know I have big and unrealistic dreams, but every language I learned goes like 30%-60% on the right track, the rest creates a lot of "why?" questions in my head.
|
|
|
|
|
I would pick statically-typed language to teach someone new to programming. Duck-typed languages, even though they are omitted from syntax, the binary code still deal with typed data. Better fill their heads with what really are under the syntax to begin with. That way they are better equipped to understand when/if they switch to duct-type languages.
Teaching new programmer with duct-type languages is equivalent to speaking a foreign language with your interpreter standing by your side.
|
|
|
|
|
I would recommend the one i'm most comfortable with. Since this person probably will ask me a lot of question when he/she/*he start learning. 
Sorry, my english is bad beta!
|
|
|
|
|
For a beginner I'd definitely steer clear of functional languages.
As far as I know there isn't one scripting language that implements OO cleanly - perhaps Python? - and I think it is important to be able to teach the principles of OOP&D in a language that does i.e. java or C#.
But before you get onto OOP you should teach the basics of structured programming. That means you should be starting off with C or Pascal.
With languages like C,Pascal,C# or Java in place, the scripting languages will fall in line and the limitations should be more obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
In all likelihood, the revolutions in video and digital will merge into one: with a new generation of media companies producing content we watch at home, listen to in our car and read wherever on the go. And thanks to technology, all your devices will know what you want, where you are and how to serve up content the way you want to consume it at that very moment.
Just like the Web destroyed the newspaper world; mobile will destroy the desktop world and on-demand video will destroy the TV and cable world. But from the rubble will emerge a much better, more eclectic, more efficient way for all of us to watch, read and listen. It will be brimming with content we can be proud of—and happily pay for. Politico co-founder, Jim VandeHei, now fled the honeypot to do some in$anely great new thing, waxes lyrical about a future that I view as a recipe for an Orwellian nightmare: [^].
I will not give thanks to technology that creates devices that know more about me than I do about them, that select content based on algorithms driven by $ale$-and-marketing lust to determine my "$lot" in some giant factor-analysis matrix.
imho, still, an interesting read, but, I find lacking mention of the sites that I think are currently setting a new high-bar for quality on-line content: that would include sites like the BBC, science coverage in the L.A. Times, and Washington Post, New Scientist and Discover magazines, and the very remarkable sites Aeon.com, and QuantaMagazine.org, my current favorites.
While I'd like to believe VandeHei's thesis that crapware spawned by click-bait is diminishing, my cynical "gut" says that will never happen. But, since I limit my use of the internet in a fairly disciplined way (except on CP) ... how would I know ? People, like me, who are old, print-oriented, and "in the way," are not the fresh meat turning the chum-filled bloody waters of the web feeding frenzy into an insoluble puzzle of who's-eating-whom where no one call tell if they are prey, or predator.
If I regard the "redacted" of people as reflected by what they do, how they behave, rather than what they say about existence, values, purpose of life, etc., then I'd have to say my country-of-birth's redacted is shopping. Perhaps that will become explicit, and, in another digital future, people like me will be branded "anti-cons," and prosecuted for our penny-pinching parsimony, forced to walk the streets wearing signs (digital, of course) that alternate displaying advertisements with displaying in huge red-letters: "No Sale." Or, used as "expendables" in some future "Hunger Games" sideshow used to keep the masses distracted with bloodlust from awareness of political tyranny.
It is a small joy to know I will be dead before any of this happens
cheers, Bill
«The truth is a snare: you cannot have it, without being caught. You cannot have the truth in such a way that you catch it, but only in such a way that it catches you.» Soren Kierkegaard
modified 20-Apr-16 7:07am.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim wrote: with content we can be proud of—and happily pay for.
It may prove a bit harder in difficult economic times to convince people to spend money on entertainment
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
