Re: Why is Ada a good choice for an ambitious beginner to programming

["David Wright" <davidw@uq.net.au>]

"Bill Findlay" <yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote >
>
> Actually, if the interest is in learning to program,
> rather than learning to use a specific toolset,
> then neither IDEs nor debuggers are necessary,
> or even particularly useful to a beginner.
>

Hi Bill,

Of all the extremely useful advice to date (thanks everyone!) this concise
remark reached out and grabbed me by the throat! If by this you are
suggesting that 'programming' should mean more than the ability to know and
use the elements of  'a' language and an IDE, but rather should subsume a
thorough understanding the central abstractions or constructs (e.g.,
looping, arrays, recursion, pointers etc) which characterise the various
language 'genres' (e.g., logical, imperative, functional, object oriented
etc), then we are very much on the same wave length.

Perhaps I am a perverse recalcitrant but it has always bemused me to read
well meaning contributors in various newsgroups tell self-teaching newcomers
to "just choose a language and learn it thoroughly". I would have thought
that a preliminary step would be to delve broadly but thoroughly into the
particular 'personalities' of the available generic styles of programming
(logical, imperative...) before choosing and committing to a specific genre,
language and IDE.

Do we ever marry without dating several different people first? ;P

How can the average C++ programmer intelligently discuss (or deride) Prolog
(for example) if they don't know its underlying premises?

I wonder whether this comparative approach means that we have moved beyond
programming into the domain of computer science. But if that is true, I am
unaware of any formal courses that have as their principal raison d'etre a
'thorough' (not cursory or introductory) exposition of the comparative
differences and merits of the main styles of programming. I stand to be
correct here.

I detect the mutterings of those who (rightly) propound the educational
theories of  'active learning', 'constructivism', 'hands on, minds on' etc:
"To learn how to program, they need to program, they need to code and code
some more!" Correct. But that's not my point.  First, we (I) need to explore
the nature of programming and its different styles. This can be done
'actively' by thinking 'actively', by reading 'actively' and by actively
discussing these issues with likeminded searchers.

So yes Bill, "neither IDEs nor debuggers are necessary, or even particularly
useful to a beginner". First things first.  However, I have yet to encounter
any comprehensive and comprehensible resources treating the comparisons
outlined above. Judging from the abundance of erudite minds starring in this
newsgroup alone, this (seeming) paucity cannot be due to insufficient
cross-generic mastery.

It seems that for many if not most, learning to code, like the prospect of
consummation, causes one to be lose patience and rush in; both ventures,
perhaps, have a certain mindless sex appeal.

Bill, do correct me if I have misconstrued what you had intended to say. I
would also be keen to hear any elaborations you may have.

Thanks for being there. ;P

David Wright

Nice tweak of the topic. I had tried to minimise the waffle and hype that
can contaminate advocational rants.