On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:45:14PM +1000, Andrew Norrie wrote:
> I'm not sure of you target audience but I see no reason to exclude  
> novice programmers. Smalltalk is good choice for a first language to  
> learn. This doesn't mean there needs to be a wordy explanation of  
> concepts like looping and flow control. To the contrary.

I agree that we should target novice programmers. There are two
reasons I am not writing for novice programmers in this
tutorial:

1.  it would be more work to write for them. The documentation
    team is very new; a larger project will stall it from
    gaining necessary momentum.
2.  it is currently more critical that Squeak get attention from
    experienced programmers than it is for others

This topic is addressed more thoroughly in a previous email,
and its responses:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-September/108919.html

> Consider 'The C Programming Language' by Brian Kernighan and Dennis  
> Ritchie. A book that describes a language that is syntactically much  
> more complex than Smalltalk without making assumptions the reader is  
> an experienced programmer. Their style is to use concise explanations  
> that are illustrated by short snippets of code so as not to bore more  
> knowledgeable readers. Some people may say that this is a difficult  
> book to read. I would suggest that is more to do with the subject  
> than it's presentation. Smalltalk that has a higher degree of  
> readability would lend itself to this style of writing.

I agree completely.

> I first learned programming in the '80s on computers that had simple  
> graphics and built in BASIC interpreters. In a few of lines you could  
> get them to draw something. It was easy and it was fun. Squeak is the  
> only modern platform I know of that shares this same spirit. It  
> deserves to be made more accessible.
> 
> Anyway I'm willing to help and I've rambled enough for now.

I will be glad to have you on the team

-- 
Matthew Fulmer