Re: [tlug] Learning to Program

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, tlug@example.com wrote:

> On Friday 03 August 2007 00:19:25 Curt Sampson wrote:
>
> Mathematics classes in Japan discourage the use of calculators; the
> teachers really stress the importance of knowing how to do math by hand.

I think you're talking about arithmetic here. When I think of "math,"
I tend to think of symbolic manipulation, where often numbers are not
involved at all. So that's where I was coming from when I was talking
about doing algebra homework.

Then again, perhaps in high school I did little more than solve
quadratics for their roots. I don't really remember.

But the more important point here is that there's a big difference
between using some software to solve the problems and writing that
software. If you can write it, I propose you'll know and remember as
much or more as if you simply practice the procedure a lot.

> Students should learn about rounding, significant figures, error, etc.
> A really great way to study this is through physics.

I completely agree.

> Those problems are particularly valuable to students because they will
> also learn how to get a feel for how an answer "looks" aside from the
> fact that it comes out even.

Hmm. Teach them to use slide rules? I think that using one provides some
serious insight into both precision and magnitude.

> The Q&A format may split the ideas up into chunks small enough to keep
> it relatively interesting for an eleven-year-old, but I do not think
> the output is interesting enough to maintain his interest for long...

Perhaps not. It's worth a try, I think.

> It is not really something that would be impressive enough to show off
> to friends...

Well, that's just something you have to get used to if you're a
programmer. Potential clients of Starling keep asking to see look at our
web sites, and it's difficult to explain that the flashy stuff you see
is not us; we do the bits behind it.

> Also, a functional language may be a bit hard to comprehend for
> someone who has not even studied functions in maths.

Well, a function is not a difficult thing: merely a mapping of inputs to
outputs. (Start the kids with category theory, anyone?*) And it's such a
fundamental thing in computation and programming that it's hard to see
how you'd get anywhere without understanding it.

* Actually, parts III through VI of Raymond Smullyan's _To Mock a
Mockingbird_ might not be such a bad thing to let them have a go at.

> Smalltalk is a fine language, but personally I would recommend a
> more "mainstream" language to a young learner.
>
> Here is a Java book...

Ouch! No, I would recommend going with a decent programming language
first. If he ends up at Java after that, all fine and dandy, but why
start someone out on crap without trying the good stuff, first?

It took me many, many years to overcome starting out with piss-poor
languages, and more than a few of them were wasted with crap like Java.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com