From: Denys Usynin <usynin@...>
Date: 2002-09-07T04:40:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby

Andrew Hunt wrote:
> Larry Wall is reputed to have said:
> 
>     >For instance, I think it's a violation of the Beginner's Principle of 
>     >Least Surprise to make everything an object. To a beginner, a number is 
>     >just a number. A string is a string. They may well be objects as far as 
>     >the computer is concerned, and it's even fine for experts to treat them as 
>     >objects. But premature OO is a speed bump in the novice's onramp. "
> 
> I think Larry's off his rocker on this one.  Consistency is far
> more important than familiarity.  IMHO, Larry is demonstrating a 
> widely-held bias that objects are somehow "different" and should 
> be segregated and not taught to beginners.
> 
> I think that's a load of crap; exposing native types as non-objects
> in Java, for instance, is to me one the largest failings of that language.
> 
> I thinks that's why so many people have trouble mastering OO concepts:
> because it's taught as a sort of an add-on to already entrenched 
> procedural, linear thinking.  It's been my experience that you get
> better mileage is you start with objects right out of the gate -- which
> is exactly what Dave and I did in the pickaxe book.
> 
  I agree completely,I think Ruby might be the best language to learn as 
your first computer language, with it's relatively forgiving syntax and 
  consistently object oriented logic.

  after all, isn't the whole purpose of OO programming to let the person 
think as a human instead of trying to think as a machine?

the way programming is taught right now, first you wrestle your brain 
into thinking in terms of computer logic so that you can code in C, and 
then wrestle it back into using human logic again when you learn OOP in 
say C++. Such an unnatural process.