G'day Ron
I can't thank you enough, my copy of your code is now up and running.
I decided that because I had a working copy of code from you, that the fault must lie on my end. So, I re-typed everything, copied and pasted the variables, and hey-presto, it's fine. Don't know what I did the first time around, but that's the benefit of having a copy of working code, I'm not guessing, and trying different things in the forlorn hope of getting code right.
< Start of rant>
Shane, I'm sure everyone, including me, is very, very appreciative of the time and effort you've put in over the years helping people, and writing Explorer and Explored, but I disagree with your assertion that I shouldn't expect programming to be a walk in the park. I've been programming since Microsoft Basic came out many years ago, (I had a 4 page program published in PC Magazine for the princely sum of Au$40), and taught myself Assembler on a Apple IIc (had two world wide educational programs released by Jacaranda Wiley), while I was teaching (TAFE Horticulture; some disparity there), but back then, Apple supplied documentation that was clear, comprehensive, and concise, and it came with the machine.
But not now. People must struggle to learn the basics of the likes of ASObjC, and it's simply not right. You personally shouldn't of had to spend years and years learning the intricacies of ASObjC, and think it's the norm. It shouldn't be. If Apple are releasing any programming language, they should supply the same clear and concise documentation similar as they used to.
We have the bloody right to it. We friggin support them, and have done through thick and thin. They're letting us down.
With your help over the past three years, and also from others, I've learnt a lot about ASObjC, but I continue to be frustrated by how to interpret code snippets from ObjC. Not all of us have your insight on how this process works, and the documentation on it is dismal, and it shouldn't be. ASObjC is not difficult once you see examples of how it can be used, just getting those examples is frustrating. You should NOT have to jump through hoops trying to learn the process of conversion, it should be laid out. Having to somehow learn about the process of how to convert first, and be expected to come up with correct code, before seeing working code as examples of how it should work? Well, from a teaching point of view, that's a @#$%^ back to front approach. If I'd had taught theory and prac like that, my Apprentices would have killed me. And if I'd used terms on them like 'Surely', and 'it should be obvious' would have meant me getting the sack. Nothing is sure and obvious to anyone until they've learnt everything the subject is about, and by then , my role as a teacher would have been fulfilled.
I can understand your desire to have everyone able to convert code willy-nilly, but for some of us (and I expect a lot of would-be-programmers), concrete examples rather than airy-faery ideals are a far, far better approach. I've learnt more from Ron's quick example that trying to learn how to decipher bloody methods of conversion, and in 30 minutes of coding compared to the I'd-still-be-frustratingly-trying-after-many-hours approach you took with me.
I think we're at an impasse on this.
< End of rant>
Sorry all,
Regards
Brian Christmas |