Re: Jeff Lamarche: Public Enemy #1
Re: Jeff Lamarche: Public Enemy #1
- Subject: Re: Jeff Lamarche: Public Enemy #1
- From: David Trevas <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:37:30 -0500
First of all, Jeff, you did not read my post because you are lying about
what I said. You have a distorted understanding about what I wrote and
you have even invented things that weren't there.
Furthermore, "inane" means "empty" or "lacking substance." Evidently,
my post contained a great deal of substance, albeit substance you
disagree with. "Inane" is indeed an inflammatory and offensive word.
If your boss at PeopleSoft proposed an inane idea, would you use that
exact word to his face? I doubt it.
I am going to show you and the rest of the readers of this list where
you distorted and lied.
You wrote:
"Yet, in your posting, you recommended that people NOT learn the basics
of programming, but rather jump right into an advanced development
environment that makes heavy use of some pretty sophisticated concepts."
Yet I said:
"I did not intend to imply that an ObjC for beginners book would omit C
features, but each feature would be given emphasis in
light of its role in Objective-C."
How do you twist this into saying that I tell people not to learn the
basics of programming?
You wrote:
"You can't jump in to Cocoa with both feet if you don't understand the
basic programming syntax and concepts upon which it is built."
But I wrote:
"I'm just putting out there that it should be possible to teach an
absolute beginner how to program in Cocoa by introducing C, Objective-C
and Cocoa concepts in an intelligently blended method."
Is it not obvious that a method that "intelligently" blends C, ObjC and
Cocoa would teach basic programming syntax at the beginning? Since this
method does not yet exist the expression "intelligently blended" is left
to the judgment of those creating it. If you were part of this project,
I'm sure the method would be learning C from A to Z before you send your
first message!
You said:
"Your advice, IMHO, was extremely bad and I thought it posed a risk to
those new to programming."
This is the part that you fabricated. I gave no advice. I was stating
my belief that a method to teach OOP from the start was possible. I
couldn't have advised anyone to pursue a course of study that doesn't
exist, can I?
On Monday, June 11, 2001, at 05:27 PM, email@hidden
wrote:
>
Okay, I'm sorry, but my lesser intellect just got lost and I'm tempted
>
to pull
>
out that word again (inane). What has this got to do with anything?
>
Paradigm
>
shifts rarely justify ignoring history or ignoring it. Do you think
>
that in Art
>
schools they now ignore artwork created before the digital age, simply
>
because
>
most illustrators are working digitally? New paradigms always build on
>
old
>
ones. It is not coincidence that we use "desktops" and "folders" on our
>
computer. On top of that, I fail to see how suggesting that new
>
programmers
>
start with the basics before trying to program in Cocoa has anything
>
at all to
>
do with a paradigm shift. You haven't suggested a new paradigm; you
>
have merely
>
encouraged people to be ignorant of most of the fundamental skills
>
necessary to
>
Cocoa programming.
>
What I have proposed is clearly a paradigm shift in the way programming
could be learned. All C++ books I've seen either tell you that you
should have learned C first or teach it to you. Of course, with only a
passing knowledge of Smalltalk, it is possible that I am just rehashing
the process of learning that language. (Hold your tongue, Jeff, let
some Smalltalk expert field that one.) My previous posts referred to
learning fundamental programming skills with an eye toward
object-oriented and Cocoa programming. In contrast, you claim that it
is easy to go from C (procedural) to C++ (OO) programming, and that is
patently false. Many veteran C programmers have a lot of difficulty
really adopting C++ thinking and end up writing C code with // comments!
So, carefully read someone's ideas before you call them inane. Make
sure you understand them and be careful not to criticize things that are
not there. Get some analogies that are not laughable. New paradigms
often reject old ones without building on them: Darwin's theory of
natural selection, quantum mechanics and psychoanalysis were three that
completely departed from the conventional knowledge of the day. Even
though your statement is false, this paradigm of teaching programming
does borrow from the old, it merely integrates ObjC and Cocoa where the
knowledge of C has advanced to a stage where they are appropriate (as
opposed to the old paradigm of learn C, then learn ObjC, then learn
Cocoa).
I'm sorry that you have misinterpreted my earlier posts in this thread
and have gone on a crusade against things I never said. I was going to
give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you carelessly read them,
but when you made up the part about me giving advise, I felt compelled
to correct you and expose the flaws of your arguments.
Dave