From: Xeno Campanoli <xeno@...>
Date: 2006-03-01T13:03:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Teaching Ruby to COBOL programmers

I like the idea that to a great extent what you are trying to do in a 
lot of programming tasks is reduce
major points to lists.  If things look like nested messes you are not 
getting it right.  Also, you design objects, when you can, to represent 
real world concepts, not to accommodate artificial internal conveniences 
you find.  The object to a great extent is not to make it go, but to 
make it maintainable so it will continue to go.

xc

Wilson Bilkovich wrote:

>This isn't a troll, I promise.  I'm actually going to be doing this tomorrow.
>
>My normal Ruby spiel is geared more toward the differences between
>dynamic and static langugages, and the power of blocks. In other
>words, "Hey, look at what you can't do in Java."
>
>This is a whole different scenario, because these people are coming on
>board to be web application developers, and their previous programming
>experience is 100% mainframe-based.  They aren't going to know HTML,
>XML, Java, C++, etc.
>
>What are some key points I should make sure to cover for procedural programmers?
>Things on my list so far:
>1. Variables don't hold values, they are just labels.
>2. Objects are nouns, methods are verbs.
>3. Structure keeps you sane.
>4. Duck typing makes testing easier.
>5. Rake as an example of something procedural in an object-oriented language.
>
>That being said, I've been immersed in OOP for so long, I don't
>remember what the hurdles are.
>Thoughts? This is going to be a three hour session, wherein I need to
>cover Ruby and at least the bare beginnings of Rails.  Obviously an
>in-depth treatment of either of those things is impossible in that
>timeframe, but I do want people to leave feeling like it's not a
>magical tongue spoken by elves and wild spirits.
>
>Thanks,
>--Wilson.
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Xeno Campanoli:  http://www.eskimo.com/~xeno
Robbing Republican Treasonists ARE MORE DANGEROUS than foreign terrorists!