Re: Ruby for beginners (was: Re: Hello)

On 2011-04-14, at 15:12, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
> In your experience: Did newcomers to programming achieve good results
> with Notepad?
When I taught people introductory programming, I never covered any more =
than what happens to be offered in Notepad. To write small-ish programs =
(say < 100 lines) you need to be able to load and save files, delete and =
insert text (including maybe cut and paste), and search for text. Global =
replace comes about the top of the skill set.=20

> It wouldn't be much of a problem to write a quick batch file that
> opens an editor as well as shell (properly linked to from the Start
> Menu, too), to provide something like a "Ruby environment" to start
> with, after all.
Yes...set up the paths, ask for what directory is wanted, and away you =
go. Such a thing could be shipped as an installable file, and let the =
(tiny) installer add it to the Start menu.

> 1) I don't think we should get too hung up on the editor question. I
> mean, it'll turn into a holy war sooner rather than later about which
> is the One True Editor.
That's why I listed four editors that are likely to be found with each =
of those OSes. None of them is my favorite, but all are usable for =
editing small programs.=20

> 2) Since the prospective Ruby user will be perusing a guide already,
> teaching "ancillaries" like saving a file as "myscript.rb" really
> *isn't* that big of a deal. They'd be following the guide anyway.
Agreed.

>> 3. I would not care to say that *ix users are more or less =
sophisticated than any other users. It's certainly true that most =
unsophisticated users who go out to buy a computer come back with a =
Windows box, but unsophisticated users might be running on any system.
>=20
> Point taken. Though, I doubt that less sophisticated users will use a
> *nix flavour at home, but rather at work.
I think we forget that people who buy `white-box' computers because =
they're cheap often don't take a Windows license. Often they propose to =
use Windows illegally, but some use GNU/Linux *because* it's cheap.=20

This particularly applies to high-school students, a group I'd think we =
particularly want to attract into Ruby programming.=20

> So, as a refinement on your proposal: the guides could "split" into
> pages for different operating systems (how to get up and running on X,
> familiarizing the user with the environment), and then merge back into
> a "This Ruby, that's what you can do!" guide, if at all feasible.
Agreed.

> I wouldn't teach "high-level systems", like OOP immediately, but once
> complex-ish tasks come up, nor would I teach anything that would
> require a gem or something like that: Just using the core and standard
> library should be sufficient, I think.
Totally agreed. In fact, pedagogically, the current CS craze for =
`Objects First' is basically teaching students rituals that in fact get =
in the way=05 of teaching concepts.=20

That's why I like the Table of Contents of Chris Pine's _Learn to =
Program_. It matches the way I think students learn. Start with =
something simple that does something useful, and work up from there.=20

I would not conceive of this newbies' page as being a tutorial on =
programming. When it gets to that point, a pointer to Pine's book (not =
the out-of-date first edition) gets inserted. (I verified that it is in =
at least two suburban Vancouver-area public libraries, so I expect a lot =
of libraries would have it, in keeping with the `low-cost' notion.)

Having said that, your list of `tasks' (along with perhaps example =
solutions) is a great idea. That really adds value to the whole thing, =
and would be relatively easy to build.=20

This feels like it's ready to move forward. I volunteered to draft the =
main page, and I'm feeling like I know what that should look like. I'll =
circulate something in the next few days.=20

-- vincent