Re: "difficulties in OO" [was Re: Adobe's lousy AppleScript implementations]
Re: "difficulties in OO" [was Re: Adobe's lousy AppleScript implementations]
- Subject: Re: "difficulties in OO" [was Re: Adobe's lousy AppleScript implementations]
- From: has <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 02:48:08 +0100
Shane Stanley wrote:
>
> If folk don't learn procedural coding to begin with, they won't have any
>
> preconceptions (baggage) to hinder them when they come to learning OOP.
>
>Ergo,
>
> there IS NO paradigm-shift problem to be dealt with.
>
>
>
Sorry, but this all smacks of dreadful zealotry. Here you are offering the
>
greatest thing since sliced bread, and these ingrates still won't fall down
>
on their knees in thanks. Hmmm, maybe the solution is to stop them from
>
learning about any alternative in the first place,
This, I would say, is describing the _current_ status quo. And did you not
read my parenthesised comment? Here it is again, in case you missed it:
>
> (And even those who don't [learn OOP] might still benefit from at
>
> least being aware there are other techniques available for solving
>
> problems than the ones they know[...])
I'm sorry the sentence structure is a bit unwieldy, but where exactly did I
say to keep 'em ignorant?
>
then they'll have to
>
follow the one true path. Induct them into the one true church at birth.
And did I say OO was greatest thing since... anything? We are talking about
the same post, aren't we?
I recognise where OO has advantages over the procedural system, and I've
some idea of where the tradeoffs lie. I'm further aware that there are
other systems more alien to folk here than either of the above: functional
programming, declarative programming, etc. Lastly, I don't for a moment
think we'll be programming computers the way we do today in another fifty
or a hundred years. _All_ techniques will be found wanting sooner or later,
and ultimately superceded by new and better ones; and so on. I see a great
many paths, all with their own strengths and weaknesses. How can _anybody_
pick one and say it's the only path to follow?
>
Much easier than coming up with a convincing argument.
I thought the original thread made a reasonable argument in itself (perhaps
that was too big an assumption?). I had the [technical] solution figured
before I'd gotten to the end of the OP's mail. Would it be grossly impolite
to say that I didn't see anyone else jumping in to provide answers? [BTW,
thread's still open if you'd like to have a pop at the problem yourself.]
Something else you might stop and consider prior to any "how dare folk have
to learn any of this complicated OO stuff" declarations. Here's some of the
things I see _all_ newcomers having to learn about if they're to use
AppleScript for almost anything practical: objects, properties, elements,
commands [methods], inheritance, object models. Though if you don't want to
expose them to any of those nasty things, that's easy: just don't teach
them *any application scripting*.
>
> In other words, you only get one shot at a clean slate, so make sure
>
>it's the
>
> one that's most appropriate. For folk who only ever want to do simple things
>
> in AS, learning OOP is really overkill.
>
>
>
So you either say tough luck to them, and make them learn what you admit is
>
overkill anyhow, or maybe you offer them a choice of manuals, and make them
>
swear that if they take the procedural path they will never wander beyond
>
the basics. This is getting better...
Oh, keep going...
I'm interested in the different approaches folk take, or could take, to
learning AppleScript; along with the pros, cons and various pitfalls that
each route entails. If it would be better to leave everyone alone to figure
everything out for themselves/make it up as they go along, then by all
means say so. Otherwise you concede that folk either need to learn
procedural, or OO, or both; which takes us right back to where this train
of thought first started out.
Given that there is NO ideal "one-size-fits-all" solution, what would be
_your_ suggestion(s)?
>
> But for folk who know they want to go beyond basic tasks into stuff like
>
> workflow systems, starting with OOP is going to pay off far better than
>
> starting with procedural and then trying to transition once procedural gets
>
> too painful to bear.
>
>
>
Perhaps overlooking the quaint possibility that they might find the learning
>
curve too much, the initial rewards too few, and the whole thing too much
>
like serious programming, and quietly walk away altogether. At which point I
>
presume we can safely label them poor material anyway.
Oh no. I think they should be led out back, and a bullet put in their
skulls to prevent them dirtying our elitist genepool any further.
Really Shane, I'm disappointed. _You've_ got firsthand experience in
teaching people this stuff, putting you in an ideal position to make an
informed contribution, and the best you could come up with was a bunch of
snide remarks. Thanks a lot.
has
p.s. You might also want to remember that I've been there, I've done all
that, and I've come through it all by the worst route anyone could take. So
perhaps consider this: what if my motives here are actually altruistic: a
concern for others and a desire to see them have an easier ride of it than
I did? Feel free to mull that over while coming up with a more considered
response, should you wish to make one.
--
http://www.barple.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk -- The Little Page of AppleScripts
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.