From: Robert Hicks <sigzero@...>
Date: 2008-02-05T00:24:58+09:00
Subject: Re: Learn how to program

On Feb 4, 5:04 am, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:32:22PM +0900, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2008 7:10 PM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> > > > Ruby and Python are pretty decent choices, I think.
>
> > > To the list of high-level dynamic languages for teaching programming, I'd
> > > add Logo (specifically UCBLogo), Perl, and probably DrScheme.
>
> > Why Perl?  I know Perl fairly well, unfortunately having done most of
> > my programming in it over the last 12 years, but I don't see why it
> > would be appropriate for teaching.  I'd think all the weird
> > irregularities would get in the way, but if you actually have
> > experience with it, I'd like to hear why I'm wrong (if I'm wrong).
>
> Learning Perl, by Randal Schwartz, is one of the all-time best books for
> learning a programming language with very little familiarity with
> programming at all.  Something like its approach with the addition of a
> teacher would make for an excellent instructional course for people who
> essentially have *no* familiarity with programming.
>
> PHP gets a lot of mileage out of how easy it is to pick up from scratch,
> and do simple work with only minimal exposure.  Perl has all the benefits
> of PHP in this regard, with the exception of PHP's ubiquity for
> markup-embedded coding on shared hosting accounts.  What Perl *doesn't*
> have is its brain-damaging limitations and design characteristics.
>
> Ruby, I think, is the best language I've ever met for teaching object
> oriented programming.  I don't think it's quite as easily grasped for
> someone who has never met a programming language before as Perl, without
> additional guidance, though.  Part of the reason for that is also the
> reason Ruby's so good for teaching OOP (and Perl's so damned ugly for
> OOP).
>
> I think both Perl and Ruby are among the best languages I've ever
> encountered for teaching programming -- with each being stronger in some
> niches than the other.  The same goes for UCBLogo as well.
>
> Does that make sense?
>

I agree with those points.

Robert