[Newbies] Misunderstanding Squeak
nathamberlane at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 20:13:21 UTC 2008
I just realized that I need to clarify something else, I don't have
difficulty "thinking in objects", I can do that just fine, as Java and C#
have both taught me this extensively. I just don't understand how to use
Squeak objects to develop a useful program.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Nathan Lane <nathamberlane at gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys are hitting most of my problems. Here's the way I design a new
> project. First, naturally I find a problem, brainstorm the general solution
> to the problem, then I work on two separate pieces, the underlying
> functionality and the user interface, be it text-based or graphical or
> whatever. After that I will likely compile my first partial version, and
> test it to see if what I get is what I expected. If not, I'll review the
> compile/runtime error messages (stack traces) and attempt to remedy the
> problem. The are other instances in which I have taken on test-based
> programming, which involves designing the solution, writing unit tests, then
> writing the code for the unit tests, refactoring, writing more tests, and
> repeating the process until the solution is complete. I don't understand how
> these sorts of processes are accomplished in the object-based system called
> squeak. I understand that there is still source code...to some extent, or
> maybe always. And I understand the SmallTalk (Squeak) is a managed
> environment, i.e. it has a runtime environment that handles types, garbage
> collection, etc.
> I've started reading that PDF book, and I can't say that I've learned much
> yet. I'm also not looking for a short cut or anything. It is simply that up
> until I encountered Squeak (the past 18 years) I have never dealt with a
> visual environment that deals with development in the way that Squeak seems
> to. The only thing that I have ever seen that even compares (in my mind) to
> Squeak is Sun's Lively Kernel, an even newer innovation than Squeak. So my
> background is in C/C++, Java, Ruby, C#.Net, Visual Basic (6/.Net), Python,
> know of those programming languages, Agile development process and such, and
> go forward in learning how to use Squeak?
> I've heard several people state that they'll "never go back to" those
> languages. But I'm very certain that like each of those languages, Squeak
> has it's place in the circle of code, and is useful for some tasks, while
> other languages are useful for other tasks. So where do I start then? Do I
> keep going in that free PDF book, Squeak By Example?
> Does anybody see my difficulty the way I do?
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Edwin Castro <
> edwin.gabriel.castro at lifetime.oregonstate.edu> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Nathan Lane <nathamberlane at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > So, as a beginner, I have noted the many things people have told me
> > > about Squeak, but one thing is really bugging me, and I can't break free of
> > > it. In my experience programming is a linear task, not object-based, so how
> > > do I program using Squeak which uses "active objects"? I don't understand.
> > >
> > I've seen this happen a lot when I see new programmers. They'll write
> > single method programs that simply make library calls or implement (inline)
> > all the functionality they need. My brother took a "learn to program" course
> > in college (in C yuk!) and all his programming assignments looked like this.
> > I *tried* to teach him to look for patterns and to remove dupplication but
> > he never got the hang of it. Writing functions that could be reused was a
> > difficult thing for him to comprehend.
> > I find that a lot of new programmers learn to program in a procedural
> > style and then continue to apply that style with other languages they use
> > even if they should use a different style. I think that working through an
> > example to show how to think about objects would be very helpful for
> > beginners. I would recommend David West's book, Object Thinking<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0735619654/>,
> > but a lot of people didn't like the book. I really enjoyed the book but
> > perhaps there are better ways to teach how to think about objects...
> > --
> > Edwin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Beginners mailing list
> > Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
> Nathan Lane
> Home, http://www.nathandelane.com
> Mirror, http://nathandelane.awardspace.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Beginners