>> John McGuinn's online tutorial: http://members.aol.com/M206ou/m206/
> 
> This is great material - thanks for the reference! But while it does a
> fantastic job of getting all the little details through in a reasonable
> order, I am not sure too many non programmers would enjoy it.

Doesn't it seem that the typical introduction for the non-programmer is
bass-ackwards. After an overview, there may be a tutorial and reference
section. Along the way, it introduces objects, messages, controls, classes,
methods, inheritance, and so on.

Case in point: http://www.inf.ufsc.br/poo/smalltalk/vwin20/index.htm. As a
traditional intro, its pretty good, but it is not for the non-programmer.

An analogy. Suppose we decide to take "Poetry101; an introduction for the
non-poet". It covers the lives of famous poets, parts of speech, rhyming
patterns, and even has tutorials for constructing a sonnet and a ballad.
Likely result: quantitatively-correct doggerel. Why? Because we learned
poetry in the third-person; we learned to be mechanics, not drivers.

(Mixed metaphors? Hey, I am a driver; see my poetic license.)

Let's try another poetry class. We learn how to write descriptively so the
reader envisions a mind movie; being transported in imagery. We learn how to
write emotively through cultural-linguistic symbols. We learn how to write
so the words themselves are part of the message; and so on. Each time
checking, if we do this, then that happens. Likely result, we approach
poetry as an activity; language as a vehicle; sympathy as a destination.

So how does one create a first-person approach applicable to learning
Squeak? The folks at StageCast have a tutorial  for Creator that combines
traditional "introduction to the elements" with a guided, hand-on approach.
That's closer, but not yet there.

Back to the analogy. Why write poems? For one thing, a poem can go where
prose cannot. It can convey a sense of shared feelings. Why use Squeak?
Well, for one thing, because a dynamic model go where a static description
cannot. It can convey an interactive representation of cause and effect.

There is a good example of this in "Computers and Squeak as Environments for
Learning" by John Steinmetz. He uses Squeak to show two different ways to
envision a circle. In one perspective, a turtle works from a radius to draw
a circle. Thus, circle = set of all points equidistant from a center. In the
other perspective, the turtle is making a circle as the result of
repeatedly, incrementally, moving forward then turning. These are different
ways of modeling a circle: one as a set of entities that have a holistic
identity (the set of points collectively construed as a circle); another as
a process of deflection without regard to center or radius.

This is exactly what I am getting at in the Morphic Modeling in
Middle-School Mathematics [MMMM] project (hey, sorry about not putting the
outline in .zip or .sit format ). Squeak is a medium for dynamic what-if
modeling. It is digital play-doh, pixel plasticine, and as such is effective
for (2D, 3D, musical, . . .) cause-effect investigations.

What does this suggest as an intro for the non-programmer?

--

R. Kenyon

|T|h|i|n|k|L|i|n|k: http://www.riverwoodpub.com/educatio.htm
Not everything is black & white: some things have to be read.