I keep reading statements about the need to simplify Smalltalk and I 
agree that for some reason, some consider Smalltalk difficult to learn. 
However, I don't think that any progress can be made without first 

- identifying who we are talking about (complete novices to 
programming, C programmers who don't know Smalltalk, etc.) 
- knowing that it is demonstrably true that these novices really 
consider learning Smalltalk more difficult to learn than other languages
- what it is that makes it difficult

Without this background, ad hoc suggestions on 'improving' a 
language that, in my opinion, does not need improvement in this 
regard, are a waste of time and could be detrimental.
I suspect that the problem is not that Smalltalk is difficult, but that we 
don't know how to teach it. 

The LearningWorks project at Open University was based on the 
assumption that Smalltalk is not difficult but that the size of its class 
library, the sophistication of its tools, and a few other things are the 
problem and that the proper approach is to hide these things initially 
and reveal them progressively. I don't know how well this strategy is 
succeeding but the fact that Adele Goldberg whose goal has from the 
beginning been to help to develop a simple language suggests that 
this view should be taken seriously.

Ivan


Ivan


> At 7:56 PM -0500 2/16/00, Mike Thomas wrote:
> 
> >The discussion about adding a beginners language to Squeak reminds me
> >of Logic Programming Associates' MicroProlog, which had a beginners
> >syntax called "Simple".
> 
> Personally, I think it's harder to get much simpler than Smalltalk.
> 
> I'll note that the DrScheme environment has various "langauge levels"
> which restrict or enhance Scheme's semantics in various ways to be
> more suitable (as determined by their research) to beginners.
> 
> For example, I think you can't quote lists at the beginners level.
> I.e., '(a b c) is a syntax error. They found that quoting was
> confusing precisely *becuase* of the data/code form equivalence, and
> that beginners did better with explicit data constructors.
> 
> (Interesting, in almost every other scheme text I can recall, quote
> comes in almost at once, since you pretty much need it to introduce
> 'car.)
> 
> Of course, quote isn't *syntactically* difficult. It just got in the
> way of learning data-driven program design.
> 
> The DrScheme project has quite a bit of info, papers, etc. It may be
> worth examining.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.
> 
> 



Dr. Ivan Tomek,
Jodrey School of Computer Science
Acadia University
Nova Scotia, Canada
fax: (902) 585-1067
voice: (902) 585-1467
e-mail: ivan.tomek at acadiau.ca