As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I was talking with some of the mentors in a local robotics competition for 7th and 8th level kids. The robot was using PBASIC and the parallax Basic Stamp. One of the major issues was this was short term project that required building the robot, teaching them to program in PBASIC and having them program the robot. All in only 2 hours or so a week over a couple months. PBASIC is kinda nice in that it has built in features to do everything, but information overload is possible to due this.
My thought are simplicity is key.
When you have kids struggling to grasp:
if X>10 then <DOSOMETHING>
There is not much point in throwing "proper" object oriented programming at them.
What are the essentials needed to foster an interest in programming?
Edit:
I like the notion of interpreted on the PC as learning tool. Due to the target platforms more than likely being somewhat resource constrained, I would like to target languages that are appropriate for embedded work. (Python and even Lua require more resources than the target likely to have. And I actually kinda like Lua.) I suppose that is one of the few virtues BASIC has, it has been ran on systems with less than 4K for over 30 years. C may not be a bad option if there are some "friendly" tools available such as Ch.
The most important is not a lot of boiler plate to make the simplest program run.
If you start of with a bunch of
import Supercalifragilistic from <expialidocious>
public void inherited security model=<apartment>
public : main .....
And tell them they "not to worry they aren't supposed to understand that" - you are going to put off both the brightest and the dumbest.
The nice thing about python is that printing "hello world" is print "hello world"
Fun, quick results. Capture the attention span of the kid.
Interpretive shells like most scripting languages offer (command line) that lets the student just type 1 or 2 liners is a big deal.
python:
>>> 1+1
2
Boom, instant feedback, kid thinks "the computer is talking back". Kids love that. Remember Eliza, anyone?
If they get bogged down in installing an IDE, creating a project, bleh bleh bleh, sometimes the tangents will take you away from the main topic.
BASIC is good too.
Look for some things online like "SIMPLE" : http://www.simplecodeworks.com/website.html
A team of researchers, beginning at Rice, then spreading out to Brown, Chicago, Northeastern, Northwestern, and Utah, have been studying this question for about 15 years. I can't summarize all their discoveries here, but here are some of their most important findings:
Irregular syntax can be a barrier to entry.
The language should be divided into concentric subsets, and you should choose a subset appropriate to the student's level of knowledge. For example, their smallest subset is called the "Beginning Student" language.
The compiler's error messages should be matched to the students' level of knowledge. If you are using subsets, different subsets might give different messages for the same error.
Beginners find it difficult to learn the phase distinction: separate phases for type checking and run time, with different kinds of errors. For this reason, beginners do better with a language where types are checked at run time, i.e., a dynamically typed language.
Beginners find it difficult to reason about mutable variables and mutable objects. If you teach pure functional programming, by contrast, you can leverage students' experience with high-school and middle-school algebra.
Beginning students are more engaged by an interactive programming environment than by the old edit-compile-link-go model.
Beginning students are engaged by splash and by interactivity. It's good if your language's standard library provides built-in support for creating and displaying images. It's better if those images are supported within the interactive programming environment, instead of requiring a separate player or viewer. And it's even better if your standard library can support moving images, or some other kind of animation.
Interestingly, they have got very good results with just 2D images. Even though we are all surrounded by examples of 3D computer graphics, students seem to get very engaged working with just two-dimensional images.
These results have been obtained primarily with college students, and they have been replicated at over 20 universities. However, the research team has also done some work with high-school and middle-school students. The first papers on that work are just coming out, so I'm less aware of the new findings and am not able to summarize them.
When you have kids struggling to grasp:
if X>10 then <DOSOMETHING>
Maybe it's a sign they shouldn't be doing programming?
What are the essentials needed to foster an interest in programming?
To see success with no or little effort. To create something running in a matter of minutes. A lot of programming languages can offer it, including the scary C++.
In order to avoid complication with #includes, multiple source files, modularization and compilation, why not have a look elsewhere? Try to write some Excel macros or use any other software with some basic built-in scripting language to automate certain tasks?
Another idea could be to play with web pages. It is not exactly programming, but at least easy to achieve something and show to others with pride.
This has been said on SO before, but... try Scratch. It's an incredible learning tool for kids. It teaches the basics of programming concepts in a hands-on and language-independent way. After a bit of playing around with it they can get down to learning a specific language's implementation of the concepts they already understand.
The common theme in languages that are easy for beginners - especially children to pick up is that there's very little barrier to entry, and immediate feedback. If "hello world" doesn't look a lot like print "Hello, world!", it's going to be harder for people to pick up. The following features along those lines come to mind:
Interpreted, or incrementally JIT compiled (which looks like an interpreter to the user)
No boilerplate
No attempt to enforce a specific programming style (e.g. Java requiring that everything be in a class definition, or Haskell enforcing purely functional design)
Dynamic typing
Implicit coercion (maybe)
A REPL
Breaking the problem (read program) down into a small set of sections (modules) that do one thing and do it very well.
You have to get them to stop thinking like a user and start thinking like a programmer. They need to take it one step at a time. Ask them what they have to think of in order to figure out the problem them selves and then write them down as steps. If you can then you break each step even more in the same mater. When done you will have the program in english making it simpler to program for real.
I did this with a friend that just could not get it and now he can. He used to look at something that I did and be bewildered and I would say that he has done more complex stuff than this.
One of the more persistently-present arguments I have had with other programmers is whether or not one's first language should require explicit type languages. Many are of the opinion that learning a language which requires you to explicitly declare type information is one which will teach you to program typefully. Conversely, it can be said that dynamic languages might present a less demanding learning curve. It goes either way, I suppose.
My advice: start with a simple model of how a computer works. I am particular to stack machines as good tools for teaching computation.
Remember that beginners are learning two disciplines at the same time: how computers work and the abstract logic involved (the basics of Computer Science), plus how to write programs that match their intended logic (learning a specific language's syntax and idioms). You have to address both concerns in an interwoven fashion in order for the students to quickly become effective. This is also the reason experienced programmers can often pick up new languages quickly.
It's worth noting Python grew out of a project for a language named ABC, which was targeted at beginners. For example, the required colon isn't strictly required, but was found to improve readability:
if some_condition:
do_this()
I got 3 words : Karel the Robot.
it's a really really simple 'language' that is designed to teach people the basis of programming :
Look for it on the web. You can look at this, though I never tried it :
http://karel.sourceforge.net/
While this isn't related to programming a robot, I think web programming is a great place to start with kids that age. It's how I started at that exact age. It easily translates to something kids understand if they use the web at all. Start with HTML, throw in Javascript, and soon they want to be doing features requiring server-side scripting or some sort, and things progress from there.
With the kind of kids who are already interested in robotics, though, I'd actually go for a different language like the ones already described. If you want to work in a field like robotics, you don't need to be convinced to try something hard. You need to be challenged.
A few years ago I saw a presentation at Ignite! Seattle from one of the people working on the project now known as Kodu who envisioned as a programming language for children. He spent time talking about what common language features could simply be thrown out in a programming environment meant to teach fundamentals.
A lot of cherished imperative constructs, like C-style for loops, were simply left out in favor of a simple object-messaging approach. Object-oriented programming isn't hard to understand when you think about "objects" and "messages"; the hard part is when you deal with things that programmers, but not children, care about, like inheritance and contracts and sweeping abstractions. I've got this thing (noun), now act on it (verb), in this way (adverb like quickly), when thing (sees/bumps into) something (with some attribute) (that's your if). Events are really conditions, and have all of the power of conditions, but it's up to the runtime to identify when those events happen.
This kind of event and messaging driven approach probably translates even better to robots than procedural programming would, anyway, so it might be a good way to look at the problem. Try not to think about what you'd "need" to know to program in C or Pascal or something; think about what you'd want to be able to make something do.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been wanting to get into a pure-OO language for a while now, but I'm put off by the fact that they all seem to demand an IDE and I can't find any good tutorials that aren't in video format.
I'm happy to use an IDE later, but I don't want to learn the language through one. What I'm looking for is a simple console interpreter or command-line compiler such as gcc, ghc, ghci and the python IDLE (yes, it's an IDE, but it's so minimalist that it may as well just be a commandline interpretter). I find that I learn a language faster, better and more comprehensively when I'm not trying to grapple with an IDE at the same time. So please, don't tell me that squeak is the only way to do it :P
I'm also looking for tutorials that are presented textually rather than visually. Again, I learn faster when I can stare at a page and read someone's sentance over and over tossing and turning it in my mind rather than having to pause a video, take it back 10 seconds, press play, do it again, and again, and again.
I'm interested in various languages with various degrees of OO-purity, and I plan to learn them all at some point. Any of the smalltalk dialects interest me, Self (an extreme prototype-oriented version of smalltalk (Very interesting, the more radical the better imo)), strongtalk, vanilla smalltalk (or some implementation which is as vanilla as you can get).
I'm interested in Eiffel as well, the code snippets I've seen make it seem very elegant and I've read that it actually was very innovative (introduced code-contracts and other such things). However I would give preference to a language from the smalltalk camp over one from the Eiffel side because Eiffel at face value seems to be a hybrid between OO and imperative programming. Similarly I'd rather avoid Scala (Hybrid OO and functional) and other hybrid languages. So no C#, Java, C++, D, python etc etc etc. I'm not dismissing these languages because I believe they are bad, it's just that I'm setting out to learn pure-OO and those languages are hybrid OO: Not really what I'm looking for.
Also, would anyone be able to recommend the official books? For smalltalk there's the "Blue book" AKA "Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation". And for Eiffel there's "Eiffel: The Language". I ask because in my experience you can pick up so much by reading books written by the author of the language (see K&R the C programming language), and by reading books in general.
So yes, my questions: What pure-OO language would be good to start off with? How would I go about learning it without having to use an IDE? And is there an associated book written by the language author(s)?
It is not helpful to learn Smalltalk as just another language. You would be missing the point entirely.
Smalltalk's graphical environment is not just an IDE. The core of the system is simply objects. The interface provides various ways to create objects and interact with them. The language is just a convenient way to create messages to the objects. It is secondary to the objects themselves.
In other OO languages, you write your program, then you run it, which creates objects in memory. Not so in Smalltalk. You create objects in memory (e.g. class objects) and then send messages to e.g. add methods. But a class object is only created once, not every time you "run your program".
There is no such thing as "your program", in fact. There is no "main". It's just a world of objects, some longer-lived, some temporary. In fact, in the system there are objects that were created 30 years ago. Literally. The objects are just frozen to disk as a memory dump (a file which we call "image") and unfrozen later (possibly on a different machine).
That image, the world of objects, is the primary artifact in Smalltalk. There is a sources file, yes, but that's just a database of text snippets to not take up so much RAM. You cannot edit this file by hand (objects in the image use absolute file offsets into the sources file). You cannot re-create the system from the sources file - the system was bootstrapped a long time ago and from then on only modified.
It's true that superficially the Smalltalk GUI looks just like another IDE. No coincidence - Eclipse was originally written by Smalltalkers in Smalltalk. But there is the crucial difference that in regular IDEs you just manipulate text files. A text editor is a valid alternative for that. In Smalltalk, the GUI manipulates objects in memory. A text editor can not do that.
And as for what Smalltalk to use, I would recommend Squeak. Very friendly community, very nice environment, and subscribing to the original Smalltalk vision of creating a great personal computing environment for everyone.
As someone who has went through process of learning Smalltalk (at least to a decent degree), I can say that you are taking harder and riskier path, in a sense that some things may take much longer to clear up, or never actually do.
But, if you insist, you can download GNU Smalltalk, for which no GUI is a norm. It also contains all sources of the system written in Smalltalk in a chunk format and you can open your text editor on them and enjoy while slowly reading through the guts of the system.
You could also startup any other Smalltalk, like Pharo, and just stick with a workspace window - this is your equivalent of command line interpreter.
Pharo also includes ProfStef quick interactive tutorial on Smalltalk, which combines text instructions and evaluating Smalltalk expressions.
As for reading, there is Pharo By Example - free book that you can browse, download or buy hardcopy.
There is also a collection of free books in which I would recommend "Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation" By Adele Goldberg and David Robson, if you are interested in the innards and detail of the language.
Late David N. Smith Smalltalk FAQ is also exelent resource.
So, there you go. And take advice, and give in to the Smalltalk IDE as soon as possible, since it makes understanding of Smalltalk much, much, faster.
Richard Gabriel gave a talk recently about a paradigm shift that occurred in the programming language community in the early 90s. He claims that most experts today are incapable of understanding many of the papers from the 80s. He has evidence to back this up. This was the first time he gave the talk, and he expects to give it many times, so I imagine that many parts of the talk will change. At first, he described this paradigm shift as engineering -> science, but then he described it as system -> language. I think that describing it as a shift from systems thinking to language thinking is a better description.
Richard Gabriel is a Lisp guy. (I'm a Smalltalk guy). Lisp is like Smalltalk in that there isn't a clear boundary between the language and the library that it uses. Arithmetic and control flow are in the libraries, not the language. (Well, Lisp has some in the language and some in the libraries, while Smalltalk has it all in the libraries, except that the compiler cheats and hard codes some of them, so there isn't really much difference in the end.) In Lisp, a program is an S-expression, and editing programs is editing S-expressions. In Smalltalk, a program is a collection of objects, and editing programs is editing objects. When you are programming, you are building a system, and you program with the system.
System thinking is different from language thinking. Language thinkers want a precise description of a language. They want a book that describes the whole thing, or (if they are academics) they want a formal semantics for the language. But system thinkers know that as soon as they start to use the system, it will change. They want to understand how the system works, but are prepared to look at the system itself to figure out the details.
These are two ways of thinking, and there are advantages and disadvantages of each. Smalltalk is a wonderful example of systems thinking. I think all software developers should know at least one system that exemplifies systems thinking. Lisp is good. Forth is another old example. Naturally, I think that Smalltalk is great and am happy to help people learn it but I think the importance of learning systems thinking is more important than the particular system you learn.
Unfortunately, learning a system is harder than learning a language. You have to do more than just learn the syntax, you have to learn the libraries, the patterns of naming and of coding, and usually the tools. (Which, if this is a system, are extensible.) That is one of the advantages of language thinking. But systems thinking has long-term advantages, because once you taylor the system to your needs then you can become very productive.
To lean smalltalk syntax, you need to read ONE page of text (see Syntax section on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk).
Now, to learn a smalltalk libraries and how to use them, you need to use browser not the text editor, otherwise your will just waste a lot of time.
I think that it is like factor of 10 difference in time, between trying to understand some code by reading in textual format and navigating it using browser and! debugger.
In smalltalk system a living objects could tell a lot about themselves and help you learn how to use them much faster than if you look at it as a static chunks of text, because you won't grasp the idea at all.
I've been playing with Squeak Smalltalk (and its close cousins, Pharo and Cuis) for a while now. There's no better way to learn Smalltalk than by using the system already provided.
I've devised a series of short youtube tutorials ranging in length from 50 seconds to 15 minutes that show how to take advantage of Squeak's ultra-cool features within a few minutes of first starting the system.
In fact, the very first line of code demos the OOP-ness of Squeak. Squeak from the very start
Python is a pure OOP . Actually this is an easy mistake that newcomers make when they come to python.
Python like smalltalk follows the mantra "Everything is an object". So everything inside python is an object, including built-in types. The difference is that python unlike smalltalk and Java does not force OOP as it allows procedural programming. And this is the trap, it easy to assume that makes python less OOP , but being a snake, is so devlish that does not tell you that even functions are objects ;)
http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/programming_books/python_programming/python_ch10s04.html
Going back to smalltalk its IDE is the huge deal here, contrary what other smalltalker may believe. If you like me are heavily disappointed with how non flexible IDEs are you are going to love Squeak's IDE. The IDE goes a great deal making easy to navigate through all the libraries and making you understand what , where and why , something happens. I cant see the benefit of using a text editor. But you can, with file ins and file outs. But doing so you cripple smalltalk into becoming as efficient as other programming languages ;)
I am only studying squeak and pharo for a week now but even for me as a beginner the benefits of the IDE is obvious from the first minute.
The fact that code is fragmented into easy to digest methods, those methods grouped into protocols , protocols grouped to our familiar Classes and Classes grouped to packages. Hence the code is so well organized that I never feel lost, everything belongs somewhere, everything is just a click away, everything is inspectable, browseable , you just select right click and sends you there. And it shows you exactly the code you need rarely more than 10 lines long. This is the IDE. Why would you prefer a text editor that will expose to information that you don't need , don't care and is likely to confuse you ?
Then everything is inside a single image , not a collection of files, your code, your libraries, system libraries , even the language itself. Everything is at your grasp, waiting for you, begging you to test, modify it, use it and abuse it. You are part of the language and the language is part of your, if something does not fit your thinking, change it. This is the IDE. Why you want to go back to the disconnected way of files and folders ?
Then you are start being afraid with all this power, all this flexibility its not unlikely that you will do something that could completely destroy the language and the libraries. Its possible , mistakes can and will happen. Again the IDE jumps in offering you a hand of help, every change is stored in a local cvs system, every change is categorized, stored and monitored any time. No lousy undos and any kind of other nonsense . What you get is old , mature well tested version control. You can change back exactly what you want any time, nothing is lost, no mistake is irreversible.
And if you don't trust you hard driver , the vcs extends online to squeaksource . And does it let you at the mercy of command line ? Hell no . You are offered the simple yet efficient Monticello browser , which will make sure you install and unistall with no conflicts .
And of course you don't want your software to have bugs , do you ? Unit Testing tool is offered to make sure your code is reliable , stable and does exactly what you want how you want it. Again a beautiful yet brilliant GUI is utilized to make complicate tasks a button away.
And because none is perfect , there will be time you will come against the dreadful error. Are you left alone ? You guessed right , a tool again is offered. The debugger. You don't need to call it, you don't need to setup it , you don't even need to figure out how it works. Like all other tools, is simple in design yet sophisticated. Not only it will spot the error , not only will tell you what you did wrong , not only will navigate through back to most basic language elements that trigger the error offering a unique perspective on how exactly the language behave like nothing I have seen before, it also allows you to do live coding. Live coding is the ability to code a program while its code runs. Isn't that impressive and infinitely useful ?
Finally , maybe you are one of those people impossible to please, maybe you still find flaws , omissions and thinks you simple don't like. The IDE is written in smalltalk , smalltalk is written in smalltalk , and the IDE can edit itself and the language, there is nothing you can't change besides some very basic functionality of the language and the VM that is compiled C. And you will guess right if you think you can use all the above tools to do exactly that.
And the tools don't stop here , smalltalk might be not that popular as other languages but it has been here for a very long time and it has some very enthusiastic programmers that love to contribute. And frankly with such an amazing IDE and such a well designed language , while with other languages contributing to them might seem a challenge, in case of smalltalk the challenge is to resist the temptation not to contribute as the IDE makes it so easy.
By the time others still code you will finish your code and actually understand what have you done and why. Thats not a small thing at all . I wish Python had such a good IDE or any other language. But the only thing that comes abit close, from my experience , is Delphi. And even in the case of Delphi I still prefer squeak and pharo.
What I find annoying about other IDEs is that they are not IDES at all, they are nothing more than glorified editors, locked, non flexible , non editable (Unless you are willing to use another programming language and navigate through tons of source code) . Squeak , Pharo and all other smalltalk dialects offer a real elegant IDE offering you really useful tools. Other IDEs better take a deep a look at smalltalk and really understand what it means to be an IDE.
Saying all those good things, smalltalk is far from perfect. And I think its biggest weakness and flaw is lack of some enjoyable and useful documentation that can help beginners jump in head first. Squeak By Example as well Pharo By Example has been a big disappointment for me. They both are still two extremely important books that provide a extremely valuable insight in both platforms , but the quality of documentation is from mediocre to bad at times. The main reason is both books follow a non noob friendly approach. First they send you deep diving in the IDE , introducing you from chapter 1 , to debugger and even unit testing !!! For me this a big mistake, and even though I am far from new to programming had to struggle to follow up what was explained. Then the book itself , lets a lot of unanswered questions. For example the explanation of instance vs class variables is not enough, I would prefer several example that not only show the how but also the why . Several areas of the book are also full of gaps or just hard to follow.
My life got a lot easier when I found this link http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks.html and from there I downloaded "Smalltalk by Example" which unlike the other book not only it does what it says in the title but makes no assumption on who you are and what you know. I can only highly recommend it. I read that the other books there that are offered freely are very good as well, I will certainly download and read all of them eventually.
Alot of help has been also #squeak at irc.freenode.net, people there has been answering my questions and helping me understand.
Squeak wiki, is ok but not enough, its also not very well organised, and I dont like that comments and discussions appear inside the wiki documentation. So documentation generally can be abit of a struggle for the begginer and certainly Smalltalk IS NOT AN EASY programming language to learn. I hear many smalltalkers say otherwise and I could not disagree more, when I compare smalltalk with python is like night and day. BUT ! Once understand smalltalk , it become much easier to program in it then any other programming language I have learned so far, and I have learned most of them. So in the end I think Smalltalk is a clear win , I also love the FFI library that lets you call any C library with ease, which unleashes serious power for smalltalk.
I dont think you need to learn the language first and then the IDE, its actually a very bad idea for the simple fact that the IDE helps you understand the language and its libraries and any type of code in it. Language and IDE is like brother and sister, yin and yang.
Well, if you decide to learn Eiffel a good book would be "Object-Oriented Software Construction" by Betrand Meyer (he created the Eiffel programming language).
The book provides great insight into object-oriented design using Eiffel. In my humble opinion is one of the best OO books around.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I have been programming in object-oriented languages for years now but secretly I look at some of the things my colleagues do with envy. A lot of them seem to have some inner OO instinct that I don't have - no matter how hard I try. I've read all the good books on OO but still can't seem to crack it. I feel like the guy who gave 110% to be a professional footballer but just didn't have the natural talent to make it. I'm at a loss and thinking of switching careers - what should do I?
I would say focus less on the OO programming and focus more on the OO design. Grab a paper and a pencil (or maybe a UML modelling tool), and get away from the screen.
By practicing how to design a system, you'll start to get a natural feel for object relationships. Code is just a by-product of design. Draw diagrams and model your application in a purely non-code form. What are the relationships? How do your models interact? Don't even think about the code.
Once you've spent time designing... then translate it to code. You'll be surprised at just how quickly the code can be written from a good OO design.
After a lot of design practice, you'll start seeing common areas that can be modularized or abstracted out, and you'll see an improvement in both your designs and your code.
The easiest way is to learn concepts such as SOLID, DRY, FIT, DDD, TDD, MVC, etc. As you look up these acronyms it will lead you down many other rabbit holes and once you are done with your reading you should have a good understanding of what better object-oriented programming is!
SOLID podcasts: http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=168, http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=163
SOLID breakdown: http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.PrinciplesOfOod
DRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
FIT: http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/38221.htm
DDD: http://dddcommunity.org/
DDD required reading: http://www.infoq.com/minibooks/domain-driven-design-quickly
TDD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
MVC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller
And yes, rolling up your sleeves and coding is always a good idea. Make a small project to the best of your current abilities. Then read an article from above. Then refactor your code to meet the needs of what you just read. Repeat until you have refactored the hell out of your code. At the end you should not only know what OO is all about but you should be able to explain why it is important and how to get their the first time. Learning how to refactor is a key to good code too. What is right now is not right tomorrow.
Too many people think of coding first, objects, last.
You can read all the books you want but that's not going to teach you how to think in an object-oriented fashion--that takes practice and a certain methodology.
Here are a few methods that have
helped me: When you're away from
work and open-minded you can
practice by looking at everything as an object. Don't look at these
objects and wonder how you're going
to program them, look at them as
properties and functions only and
how they relate or inherit from each
other. For example, when you see a
person, they are an object and
therefore would represent a class.
They have properties like hair
color, skin tone, height, etc. They
do certain functions as well. They
walk, talk, sleep, etc. Some of the
functions these people do returns
results. For example, their working
function returns a dollar amount.
You can do this with everything you
see because everything is an object.
Bicycle, car, star, etc.
Before coding a project, design it by
using post-it notes and a dry-erase
board. This will make good practice
until you get the hang of this.
Think of your specific
object/function/property. Each of
those items will have its own
post-it note. Place them as a
hierarchy on the dry-erase board. In
this regard, function/properties
will be placed under the object. If
you have another object, do the same
for that one. Then ask yourself, do
any of these post it notes
(objects/functions/properties)
relate to each other. If two objects
use the same function, create a
parent object (post-it note) and put
it above the others with the
reusable function under the new
note. Draw a line using the
dry-erase marker from the two child
objects to the parent.
When all this is done, then worry
about the internals of how the class
works.
My suggestion would be to learn something different.
Learn functional programming, and apply what you learn from that to OOP. If you know C++, play around with generic programming.
Learn non-object-oriented languages.
Not just because you should use all these things as well (you should), or because they should completely replace OOP (they probably shouldn't), but because you can apply lessons from these to OOP as well.
The secret to OOP is that it doesn't always make sense to use it. Not everything is a class. Not every relationship or piece of behavior should be modeled as a class.
Blindly trying to apply OOP, or striving to write the best OOP code possible tends to lead to huge overengineered messes with far too many levels of abstraction and indirection and very little flexibility.
Don't try to write good OOP code. Try to write good code. And use OOP when it contributes to that goal.
In many fields there's a "eureka" moment where everything kind of comes together.
I remember feeling frustrated in high school geometry. I didn't know which theorem to apply on each step of the proof. But I kept at it. I learned each theorem in detail, and studied how they were applied in different example proofs. As I understood not only the definition of each theorem, but how to use it, I built up a "toolbox" of familiar techniques that I could pull out as needed.
I think it's the same in programming. That's why algorithms, data structures, and design patterns are studied and analyzed. It's not enough to read a book and get the abstract definition of a technique. You have to see it in action too.
So try reading more code, in addition to practicing writing it yourself. That's one beauty of open source, you can download lots of code to study. Not all of that code is good, but studying bad code can be just as educational as studying good code.
Learn a different language! Most developers using only Java (just as an example) have only a limited understanding of OO because they cannot separate language features and concepts. If you don't know it yet, have a look at python. If you know python, learn Ruby. Or choose one of the functional languages.
The aswer is in your question ;)
Practice, practice, practice.
Review your own code and learn from the mistakes.
TDD has helped me most in improving my overall skillset including OOP.
The more code you write, the more you will notice the pitfalls of certain programming practices. After enough time, and enough code, you will be able to identify the warning signs of these pitfalls and be able to avoid them. Sometimes when I write code, I will get this itch in the back of my mind telling me that there may be a better way to do this, even though it does what I need it to. One of my greatest programming weaknesses is "over-analyzing" things so much that it starts to dramatically slow down development time. I am trying to prevent these "itches" by spending a little more time on design, which usually results in a lot less time writing code.
...secretly I look at some of the things my colleagues do with envy. A lot of them seem to have some inner OO instinct that I don't have - no matter how hard I try...
I think you have answered your own question here. Reading good code is a good start, and understanding good code is even better, but understanding the steps to get to that good code is the best. When you see some code that you are envious of, perhaps you could ask the author how he/she arrived at that solution. This is entirely dependent on your work environment as well as the relationships with your colleagues. In any event, if anyone asks me the thought process behind any code I write, I don't hesitate to tell them because I know I would want them to do the same for me.
Language designers have interpreted "Object Oriented Programming" in different ways. For instance, see how Alan Kay, the man who first used the term OOP, defined it:
OOP to me means only messaging, local
retention and protection and hiding of
state-process, and extreme
late-binding of all things. It can be
done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There
are possibly other systems in which
this is possible, but I'm not aware of
them.
(Quoted from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~ram/pub/pub_jf47ht81Ht/doc_kay_oop_en).
It might seem strange that he don't consider Java and C++ OOP languages! But as the designer of one of the first and best OOP languages (Smalltalk) he has his own valid reasons for that. Why did Alan Kay consider Lisp an Object Oriented language but not Java? That question demands serious consideration by anyone who claims to understand OOP.
Erlang has an altogether different implemntation of OOP, Scheme has another.
It is worth considering all these alternative views. If possible learn all these languages! That will give you a broader outlook, put some new and powerful tools in your hand and make you a better programmer.
I have summarized my experiments with implementing an OOP language, based on ideas borrowed from Smalltalk, Scheme and Erlang in this article.
public void MasteryOfOOP()
{
while(true)
/* My suggestion is: */
DO: find a lot of well-written object oriented code and read it. Then
try to use the insights from it on your own coding. Then do it again. Then
have a colleague who is a good OOP look at it and comment. Maybe post a chunk
of your code on SO and ask for how it could be improved.
Then read some more of those books. Maybe they make a little more
sense now...?
Now go back to the top of this post, and do it again.
Repeat Forever.
}
}
If you're lost as to how to design object-oriented systems, start with the data. Figure out what stuff you need to keep track of and what information naturally goes together (for example, all of the specs of a model of car group together nicely).
Each of these kinds of thing you decide to track becomes a class.
Then when you need to be able to execute particular actions (for example, marking a model of car as decommissioned) or ask particular questions (for example, asking how many of a given model of car were sold in a given year), you load that functionality onto the class it interacts with most heavily.
In general, there should always be a pretty natural place for a given bit of code to live in your class structure. If there isn't, that signals that there's a place where the structure needs to be built out.
There's too much information about objects. The most important thing is to master the basics and everything falls into place more easily.
Here's a way to think about objects. Think about data structures in procedural languages. They are a group of fields without behaviour. Think about functions that receive pointers to those data structures and manipulate the latter. Now, instead of having them separate, define the functions inside the definition of the the structures and assume the functions usually receive a pointer to the data structure to manipulate. That pointer is called this. In sum, think about objects as the combination of status (data) and behaviour (methods - the fancy name for functions in OOP).
This is the absolute basic. There are three more concepts you must absolutely master:
Inheritance - This is all about code reuse.
Encapsulation - This is all about hiding the implementation from the interface. Simply put, everything ought to be private until proven otherwise.
Polymorphism - It doesn't matter the type of the reference variable, but the type of the actual instance to know which behaviour (method) is called. Java doesn't make it easy to have this concept very visible because by definition everything is polymorphic. .Net makes it easier to understand as you decide what is polymorphic and what is not, hence noticing the difference in behaviour. This is achieved by the combination of virtual and override.
If these concepts are very well understood, you'll be fine.
One last final tip: You mention the best books. Have you read "Thinking in Java" by Bruce Eckel? I recommend this book even to people who are beginning in .Net, as the OOP concepts are clearly laid out.
Become more agile, learn junit testing and study about Domain Driven Design. I suggest the book Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software although it's a bit tough at some points.
OOP skills comes over time. Reading 1, 2 ...10 books doesn't cut it. Practice writing some code. If you are working in a programming enviornment...that can be helpful. If not try getting into one. Offer to develop some application(s) for free. You have to get your hands dirty. Remember...no application is perfect from the ground up.That's why there is re-factoring.
Also...don't get carried away with the OOP too much...it somes over time. Worry about developing fully functional applications.
Try some programming in Self, one of the most pure OO languages around. So pure, in fact, that it doesn't even have classes, only objects. It also doesn't have variables, fields, statics, attributes, only methods. Also interesting is the fact that every object in the system is also an object on the screen and vice-versa.
Some of the interesting papers on Self are Prototype-Based Application Construction Using SELF 4.0 (the Self tutorial), Self: The Power of Simplicity and Organizing Programs Without Classes. Also, Self: The Video (Randall B. Smith; Dave Ungar) is terrific, having two of the language's designers explain Self's ideas.
This works for pretty much any concept, actually, at least for me: find the language which most purely embodies the concept you want to learn about and just use it.
OO finally clicked for me after I tried to program a bank-like program that handled transactions, calculated interest, and kept track of it all. I did it while I was learning Java. I would suggest just trying it, completing it, and then when you're done go look at a GOOD solution and see what you could've done better.
I also think OOP skills strenghten mostly with practice. Consider changing your company, if you've been there for more than 3 years. Certainly, this is not valid for all jobs, but often a man gets used to the projects and practices at a company and stops advancing as time passes.
Roll up your sleeves and code!
You said the answer yourself: practice. Best solution for this is to develop a game. Use the concepts you learnt in the books there.
Have you read the chapter on OO from the first edition of Scott Meyers "Effective C++" book? It didn't make it to later editions, but it was a great explanation. The title was basically "say what you mean, mean what you say" about suitable conventions.
Actually, you might like to see my answer to a similar question over here.
HTH
cheers,
OOP is not a thing you can master by reading thousands of books. Rather you have to feel the inner concepts. Read anything but try to feel what you read. Build a concept in the back of your mind and try to match those concepts when you face a new scenario. Verify and Update your concepts as you explore new things.
Good luck!
Plan things out. Ask yourself how you want your objects to relate to eachother and seek out how things can be changed and modularized.
Code things in such a way that if you wanted to change 1 piece of the code, you only have to change that 1 piece of code and not 50 instances of it.
beer helps. seriously. lie out on a couch with an A3 sized scribble pad, a pen and a beer. Lock the dog, cat and wife outside. And think about the problem while relaxed. Don't even dare draw an API on it!
Flowcharts, Responsibity cards (CRC) and beer (but not too much) go a long way.
Easiest way to refactor code is to not have to in the first place.
http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/
Those small simple rules will make you a better OO programmer. Follow the rules religiously as you code and you will find your code is better than it would otherwise be.
You'll also want to learn the Solid Principles: http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.PrinciplesOfOod
As much as these principles and ways of programming cause debate, they are the only way to truly write excellent code.
You may already write code this way and not know it-- if so, great. But if you need a goal to strive towards, these are the gold standard.
Give up! Why do you need that that OOP? Just write some usable app. Doesnt metter using OOP, procedual or functional approach.
Whataver approach you choose Python language should be sutable to practice it.
You're my target audience. Look at Building Skills in OO Design
Perhaps this can help.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I am learning programming. I plan on learning C and Objective-C this summer. I bought the C for Dummies book but it is a complete waste of time. It's way too many pages! Are there any good books I should read? Or should I just learn C from websites? What would be the fastest way because I really want to learn it fast and start learning Objective-C too.
Thank you
Also, how long does it take to learn C? Until I move to Objective-C 2.0
There's no need to rush. Learn at your own pace and find your optimal way of learning.
If reading is your thing, then try to read some books and take it slowly.
If you find a concept you grasp, practice. If you find a concept that you don't quite get, experiment. Once you think you understand the concept, try re-reading the material to see if you understand it the second time.
I found out that I wasn't really good at learning though books -- I generally had to get the first kick-start with a structured lessons in a classroom. A semester course at a community college on Java was able to nudge in the direction of being able to begin effectively learning on my own. See if there are any programming courses offered in your school.
(Although at your age it may be a little bit difficult to find -- I didn't get any formal classes until community college -- my high school did not offer any programming courses.)
One of the things to be careful of is learning it the wrong way.
Rushing through material, or reading poorly written, inaccurate learning material can lead to a situation where you'll need to "un-learn" the concepts and re-learn it the right way.
In that respect, the K&R book (The C Programming Language by Kernighan and Ritchie) would be the "right way" of learning, but it's not a very approachable book. That isn't to say that it is the definitive book on C -- but even after programming in C for a couple years, I still try to take read it a bite-size at a time.
But then again, I can't really think of other "great" sources for learning C. My recommendation would be to take a look at K&R and work on a few pages at a time. Don't think about reading it like a regular book -- read one section, try it out. Do it little-by-little. Once again, don't rush. Work at your own speed.
And be sure to write code. Without seeing it working, it's going to be difficult to learn programming. And don't have huge expectations at first, as most of learning C at the beginning will involve programs that deal with only text.
Once you get a handle of things, try to write clean code that is readable by others -- that should be a motivation to write clean and clear code, and it will force you to think harder about what you're doing.
It's going to be a long adventure, so take it a step at a time. Good luck!
For learning C, I highly recommend Learn C on the Mac, by Dave Mark. Not only is it aimed at beginners, but it also teaches you a lot about the important fundamentals of programming and computer science (e.g. data structures, recursion, etc.). It's very accessible, well-written, and easy to read. Plus, I found the examples engaging and interesting to work with. After that, if you really want to solidify your foundations in C, I'd recommend trying to moving on to The C Programming Language. It's a challenging book, so take it slowly. If you find yourself having too much trouble with it, I'd say you can just skip to Objective-C, and then come back to The C Programming Language later, once you've gained more familiarity with programming in general.
A lot of people will probably recommend The C Programming Language (a.k.a. "K&R") as your first book to read on C. No doubt it is a very well-written C book (and it's short too—only around 200 pages), but I'd say it'd be a little intimidating as a 12-year-old's first exposure to C: it's pretty dense and hardcore. You can tell that it's definitely aimed at an older audience with a strong background in computers/engineering. But nevertheless, if you already know the basics of programming, reading K&R will give you invaluable insight and understanding of C. You should definitely read it at some point in your programming endeavors.
Anyways, for Objective-C, if there's only one book I could recommend, it would most definitely be Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X, by Aaron Hillegass. It's really not that long (~400 pages or so, although I'd reckon that a lot of that is due to the number of illustrations in the book), and you can get some pretty cool projects up and running in an afternoon. It's very clear and easy to read, the examples are practical and interesting to follow, but most importantly, it's got this right blend of not being too intimidating while still managing to provide you with solid information. Plus, it'll teach you more than just Objective-C: I found that I had learned some very useful design patterns, for example, by learning how some of the components of Cocoa worked.
When I look at the title of this question, I am guessing you are 12.
I started programming when I was 13 (I am now 14).
I found that learning depends on what kind of a learner you are!
I hate reading, I have the attention span of a moth and I learn best from videos. Therefor, I am a "visual learner". Try to find out what kind of "learner" you are, then do it that way. Remember, the easiest way is the fastest.
PS, here is a little tip. It may be frustrating (aseptically at our age). If you get frustrated, just put it down for like 10 minutes. Then come back and do research on what your learning. Programming WILL get very frustrating at times.
EDIT:
By the way, I like to learn through video :p
Stanford University posts online the lectures, class notes, and assignments for CS193P (an iPhone development class). If you don't know C or Objective-C at all, it might be tough, but I highly recommend this if you intend to do iPhone development.
I think I've read every Cocoa and Objective-C book out there, and most enjoyed Aaron Hillegass' Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X.
I would take a look at The C Programming Language (K&R C). It's much less than 1000 pages and I think you'll find it well worth your while. As htw said, books do serve a purpose in that they provide a thorough and structured approach. K&R C in particular will give you real insight directly from the creators of C.
That's not to say you shouldn't Google things, read open source code, write little practice programs, etc. It all helps. Just remember to be patient. There's a lot out there.
Checkout out http://www.cprogramming.com/ or and online K&R type book
Don't be impatient; take your time. Follow tutorials, dissect short snippets of code, you'll get the hang of the language. Most importantly, write code yourself and learn from your bugs/errors.And follow Stack Overflow ;)
I've been where you are. It wasn't fun. This is what saved me:
(Apparently new users aren't allowed to post hyperlinks, so google for "steve summit C", use either the first or the third link, and then click "introductory C programming class notes")
It's a C class by a guy named Steve Summit. Super easy to follow, much easier than K&R, imo.
Also, it's free, and there aren't any ads. I loved it. It's how I learned C. I hope it'll do the same for you.
There is nothing so educational as a piece of code you can run and tweak. Code examples in books can be really bland and not very applicable. The exception to this rule was the Perl Cookbook which is jammed packed with really useful little snippets for your perl programs.
The topics (or 'idioms') in it were so useful and so applicable across languages that some smart folks have taken to replicating them in different languages. Each has a varied level of completeness, but it's interesting to see how different languages do the same things.
Take a look here http://pleac.sourceforge.net/ for nuggets of programming wisdom that you can shake a stick at. At the very least its interesting to see how simple things written in one language require reams of code in another.
Were I starting to learn programming again I would probably pick something easy and forgiving, a dynamic language, like Python, Ruby etc. Once you get your head around the basics in one of these (flow control, data structures etc) it will make learning C/Objective-C so much easier. Also you'll find that you'll want to write once-off tools and scripts to help you in your Objective-C development that would be tedious and time consuming to write in C but are a matter of lines in a modern dynamic language. Never hurts to have another tool in your belt.
Good luck
Honestly, I learned Java as my first programming language (I discovered it in high school and decided programming was fun and it was what i wanted to do)
I just now picked up Obj-C in a few weeks, reading a little bit from some books, but not a whole book, and using the internet a lot if i can't figure out the syntax (format/grammar of how the program should be structured and written) for something etc.
How fast you can pick up a language depends on how much you understand the fundamentals of programming. You will only get better at it with time and practice.
If you can understand the fundamentals of programming in general then you should be able to apply it to any language, the hard part is learning and remembering the syntax of different languages. Like in Java, you don't have to do memory allocations, but in C, C++ and Obj-C you do. I've never written a C or C++ program, but now that I've learned and written some programs in Obj-C (i've been making iPhone stuff, it is fun) I'm sure I could pick up C and C++ like it's nothing.
You don't have to learn C first in order to learn Obj-C is what i'm trying to say. But it never hurts to know multiple languages.
It is all about your level of understanding how a program works, how to structure one. I love objective-C because it is Object Oriented like Java so it was easier for me to understand and learn quickly, just had to get used to some of the differences in syntax
(I'm also getting close to graduating from college now so I'm surrounded by programming stuff, from procedural languages like ada to object oriented like java, and knowing the nitty gritty behind the scenes stuff that makes a program work, so understanding and learning a new language has gotten a lot easier for me, you start seeing how they relate and don't relate and it is cool)
It is great that you are starting so young. I'm sure you'll pick up on this stuff real fast, and if it is something you really enjoy, it will be even easier.
Good Luck! and have fun! programming can be so frustrating... like, spending 3 hours debugging when you find out it was because you if statement used a grater than instead of grater than or equal too or something like that. but, once you are done with the program, it is so rewarding, and then you just want to make it better and better haha.
I dunno if this helped at all, I hope it did, somehow...
=)
the way i learned quickest was to watch short video tutorials.
If you really want to start with C, I would start by just reading the first three or so chapters of C for Dummies, just to get a feel for how the language works. After that, I recommend going through web tutorials. Good web tutorials will have short code that explain specific functions, and the like.
As a 13-year old, though, I recommend starting with PHP. It's a simpler language to learn than C, but it's based off of C, so it won't be hard to make the transition, whenever you do so.
Different people have different preferred ways of learning. You can see that in the variety of responses above.
So how do you like to learn? Do you like to sit by yourself with a book and a computer? Do you like to sit in a classroom and absorb learning? Do you prefer set exercises, or mini-projects?
When I learn new programming languages, I find it helps me if I have a small application or problem to work on. I prefer to have a problem to work on. If you have a little project of your own that you always wanted to do, use that. If not, as someone above suggested, join a robotics group. Set up a web page and write some programs to do stuff for that.
Look on the web for programming challenges. Google has a fun one every year.
If you want an idea, write a sukoku checking program. Then later, write a sudoku solver!
I like to use a variety of books, rather than just sticking to one or two of the ones suggested above. Find a book whose style you like. Try a few from the library until you find one or two that really click for you.
Personally, I like O'Reilly Publishing books for their chatty and readable style. I learnt C from Deitel, which is more of a classroom style textbook, but it has lots of examples and discussion points.
As you work through examples on your computer, you might wonder how things change if you tweak the code. I learn a lot by first running the example code suggested in a text, but then changing it to see what happens. If I get what I expect, it's a sign that my understanding is pretty good. If I get something unexpected, I try to figure out how I misunderstood what I did.
One last suggestion. Why not start with Python rather than C? I hear that a lot of schools are teaching Python to their kids. The reasons I suggest this are:
Python is pretty easy. You don't have to lay out memory, declare variables and such. No tedious bookkeeping.
Python gives you a nice growth path. You can start off just writing script style programs, using the built in types like lists and dictionaries. Then you progress to using new modules as you need them, and advance into object-oriented coding using classes. There's some functional programming stuff in there too, which you can start learning once you have the basic mechanics of the language under control.
I just love visiting new parts of python all the time.
You can get a lot done in python. It comes with a whole lot of built in modules to do almost anything you like - email, web, xml, graphics, gui, etc.
:)
When I was learning to program in C, I found that Practical C Programming was a good resource. It's a very approachable book with lots of examples.
The fastest way in my view is through learn through websites.
Set a goal of what you want to do and start a simple project
Instead of reading too many books theoretically,google what you want to know to get it instantly as you go through your project.This way you get PRACTICAL knowledge.
Watch online videos as well.Check out my question on VIDEOS here
Ask whatever you don't understand on stackoverflow. We're here to help :)
Follow these steps and I can assure you that you will be a great programmer soon!
Cheers!
With others, I highly recommend Kernighan and Ritchie—perhaps the best language book ever written. I'd also recommend that you slow down and enjoy yourself: don't be wide and shallow; start out narrow and deep. If you like programming, you will want to master the craft rather than be in a hurry. This essay by Peter Norvig explains how not to be in such a rush.
P.S. I started programming at age 12 with APL/360. I had a blast and have been doing it ever since—35 years and counting. Good luck and don't forget to have fun!
By far the best way (and usually the fastest) to learn programming is to find a good mentor. That's easier said than done. But I think you'd be surprised how many people would be willing to help you out. My advice would be just don't be afraid to ask.
If I were you I would find a local FIRST robotics team and see if you can hang out for some of the coding. Odds are you'll be working on a similar problem and will have some support from people who have a decent amount of experience. That's what I would have done, anyway.
I started learning to program in Basic in about 1981 when I was 10. Not many years later it was 6502 assembly to try to get more speed out of a 1 MHz Apple IIe clone.
Pascal was a revelation in 1988 - programming without line numbers.
Modula-2, C, Eiffel, Miranda, Haskel, and Prolog at university as well as scripting in any number of languages.
C++ professionally for about 6 years.
C#, then Java, Ruby, and now back to C# for the last 18 months.
Python somewhere along the way.
My advice, pick the language that is best suited to the problem you need to solve today.
The first problem you have is to learn the basics ie how to break down a problem and express it in a clear and concise manner. I suggest you choose something other than C. I recommend Python as the online documentation is excellent and the libraries are great and you will spend more time writing interesting code and less time trying to figure out why your code stopped due to a segmentation fault.
When you've got the basic concepts under your belt, try some assembly and learn what's going on under the hood. If nothing else, you'll learn how fast CPUs really are. C is a good step after that. I also suggest you try Java or C# before Objective-C.
As to how long before moving to Objective-C, it really depends on how talented you are. If you're really good, then once you've learnt your 3rd or 4th language you'll can be more productive than most coders within 6 weeks of starting a new language (although changing language families (ie imperative, functional, object oriented) takes longer). If you're no good then don't expect to get past the first. Hopefully you make it into the first category.
In addition to whatever books and websites you end up using, you might consider looking around your area for local support groups. Many areas have a Linux user group or a group for Java or Ruby programming. Professional programmers use these groups to help each other with their programming problems, but the groups are generally friendly to young people and beginners. Don't feel embarrassed or awkward because of your age and inexperience. Most people will admire your initiative and curiosity and be happy to help you when you run into problems.
Assuming you have some basic programming knowledge, Cocoa Dev Central have a series of articles that explain basic C then Objective-C, in a somewhat-less-than-1000-pages way..
Learn C for Cocoa, then Learn Objective-C
Shouldn't take even an hour to go through. The articles don't cover anything remotely advanced, but if you're learning ObjC to write OS X applications, the ObjC bit is basically trivial, it's Cocoa that is difficult to learn!
If you want to learn Objectif-C to create iPhone application, don't waste your time on C and learn Objectif-C now, then a book on iPhone programming. It will be more than 1000 pages but if you want to program in your life, you have to be used to read these types of book.
I created an online interactive C tutorial, you can start using it without installing an IDE.
http://www.learn-c.org
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm at a stage where I am forced to learn Lua, so do you have any suggestions on how I do this? I don't have a lot of experience with any other scripting languages than PHP.
So, some suggestions on "head start Lua"-pages?
EDIT
As an addition to the wonderful tutorial pages, could you please suggest any "programs" I could make that will help me learn Lua? Imagine I would want to learn Pointers in C++, I'd make a Linked List. I want to touch the basics in Lua but meanwhile be open to pretty advanced stuff.
First of all work your way through the Programming in Lua, it should take you a day or two to get the gist of Lua.
However I can tell you right away on your first time through ignore coroutines and metatables, they are very powerful, but take a while to grasp. First learn the syntax, scoping (same as PHP luckily for you) and the standard libraries.
After that go back to coroutines and metatables, read them try them and by the third time through you might get it. Unless you have a very good CS background these are complex topics
Edit: The book is free online == website. Besides it is the best tutorial out there on Lua, everyone learns Lua with it.
Also: If you're purpose is Lua for World of Warcraft (probably not but just in case) you can check out this tutorial
And: Here is a tips and tricks thread on StackOverflow, might help give you some ideas of what to expect from Lua
Suggested Programs/Exercises:
Since you're initially looking at Lua for web development try to understand and improve the Data Description example in PIL. It'll give you a few good ideas and a nice feel for the power or Lua.
Then you might want to try out playing with the Data Structures chapter, although Lua has a single complex data-type, the Table, that chapter will show you Lua-like ways to make a table do anything you need.
Finally once you begin to grok metatables you should design a class system (yes with Lua you decide how your class system works). I'm sure everyone that knows Lua has made a dozen class systems, a good chapter to get you started on a class system is Object-Oriented Programming
And if you got time and know C or something like that (C# and Java included) try extending an application with Lua, but that'll take a week or two to do
Funny to see all these elaborate lists (though they are certainly correct). Back in 2002, I read about the first 20+ pages of the Lua reference manual, and started using it. It really is that simple. Lua (and ANSI C) are of the few languages that really fit in one's mind all at once - and stay there. For the others, at least I need to constantly do some relearning.
Be aware that getting to think in Lua will take time. I think mine was 6 months or so. When coming from C/C++, we tend to solve problems in certain ways. Lua might offer better means (i.e. via use of tables) but it takes a while to start seeing those. This transition to a higher abstraction level is similar to the Assembler->C shift in the 1980's. Many people still coded a while in C as if it only were a portable assembler.
There is also a large body of projects related to Lua at LuaForge.
If you happen to use Windows as your day-to-day platform, then I would recommend getting the Lua for Windows package as a nice starting point. It includes a wide array of useful modules all prebuilt and installed together with the Lua interpreter.
After your first pass through PiL and the reference manual, you will want to read Lua Programming Gems which is currently only available in a paper edition.
<plug> Do consider buying the books through the associate links at Lua's books page or LuaForge to support the projects. </plug>
Edit: As for ideas for programming projects where Lua is suited, look for problems where the table provides leverage. Tables are central to Lua, since even the global variables are just fields in a table. Tables can be indexed by values of any data type except nil, but have an especially efficient implementation if used as arrays.
One quirk that trips up people coming from a C-like background is that all things in Lua are naturally indexed starting from 1. Strings are indexed from 1, arrays start at 1, etc. Don't worry about it too much, there is nothing wrong with using a[0], but the length of the array given by #a is defined assuming that the array began with a[1].
Another quirk is that functions don't really have names. They are first class values that are usually stored in some variable that has a name. Syntax sugar makes it look like they have names, but that is just a convenience.
Metatables are a particularly Lua-ish feature of tables (and other types, but that is a really advanced topic) that are the basis for most of the schemes for doing object-oriented things in Lua.
Closures and true tail calls are other features of Lua that aren't often found in small scripting languages that can really make some idioms easy to implement.
In addition to the suggestions above, there's also the Lua wiki which is well worth a browse. There are a tremendous number of code snippets and small recipes there which can be useful.
I wrote a short quick-start guide to Lua for people using it on a project I was working on.
If you are familiar with other scripting languages it may get you up and running quickly.
The docs on Lua.org are very good and should cover most everything else you need. Lua is a pretty small language and can be learned fairly quickly.
This is a pretty general recommendation, but if you want to get started in a new programming language as a software engineer, it's fun to start doing the problems found at Project Euler in your new programming language. I've been doing this with Python recently and found it to be inspiring and bring a lot of enthusiasm to the coding.
You could install World of Warcraft and make a mod for that (it uses Lua). Actually that's probably a bad idea.
Maybe try to integrate Lua into a .NET application (assuming you are a C# programmer) and do something 'fun' with it:
Using Lua with C#
Or just browse lua.org
I've been studying OOP for quite a while now and I have a good grasp of the theory. I read the Head First book on OOP and, while it reinforced a lot of the theory, I found the case studies to be somewhat trivial.
I find that I'm applying OOP principles to my code each day, but I'm not sure if I'm applying them correctly. I need to get to the point where I am able to look at my code and know whether I'm using inheritance appropriately, whether my object is cohesive enough, etc.
Does anyone have any good recommendations (books, online guides, blogs, walk-throughs, etc.) for taking the next step in developing solid OOP skills?
I am working primarily in .NET (visual basic), but I welcome suggestions that incorporate various platforms.
Read Refactoring by Martin Fowler, and apply it to your own work.
It will take you through a litany of malodorous characteristics of software code that describe how to detect improperly constructed classes, and even more importantly, how to fix them.
Consider looking into Design Patterns. Although it seems like they aren't commonly used in enterprise applications (I've seen them more commonly used in API's and Frameworks than embedded into enterprise code), they could be applied to make software simpler or more robust in a lot of situations if only developers knew how to apply them.
The key is to understand the design patterns first, then with experience you'll learn how to apply them.
There is a Head First book on design patterns that teaches the concept pretty simply, although if you want a book that really covers design patterns in detail, check out the Gang of Four design patterns book, which is basically what made design patterns mainstream and is referred to almost every time the topic is brought up.
Design patterns can be applied in pretty much any object-oriented language to some degree or another, although some patterns can be overkill or over engineering in some cases.
EDIT:
I also want to add, you should check out the book Code Complete 2. It's a very influential book in the world of software development. It covers a lot of different concepts and theories. I learn something new every time I read it. It's such a good book that if I read it every 6 months to a year, I look at it from a different perspective that makes me a better programmer just by re-reading it. No matter how much you might think you know, this book will make you realize just how little you really know. It's really a great book. I can't stress how much you should own this book.
If you already have the basics, I believe only experience will get you further. You say you are not sure if you are applying the principles correctly, but there is no one correct way. Code you write today, you'll look at in 6 months time, and wonder why you wrote it that way, and probably know of a better, cleaner way of doing it. I also guarantee that after 10 years, you'll still be learning new techniques and tricks. Don't worry too much about it, it will come, just read as much as you can, and try and apply what you read in small chunks.
I am currently half-way through the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Applying-UML-Patterns-Introduction-Object-Oriented/dp/0131489062
I cannot recommend this book strongly enough in terms of learning a real-life, professional-grade, practical approach to drafting and applying a well-formed and iterative design strategy before diving into code.
I, too, read the "Head First" book and felt that I was much better off for having read it.
After having a few years of working-world experience, I now view the Craig Larman book that I am recommending to be a perfect "next step" for me.
About the Presence of "UML" in this Book Title:
Whether you have positive feelings or negative feelings about UML notation, please do not let that influence your decision to buy the book (ISBN 0131489062) in either direction.
The prominence of "UML" in the title is misleading. While the author does use and explain UML notation, these explanations are extremely well-woven into relevant design discussions, and at no time does this book read like a boring UML spec.
In fact, here is a quote taken directly from the book:
What's important is knowing how to think and design in objects, which is a very different and much more valuable skill than knowing UML notation. While drawing a diagram, we need to answer key questions: What are the responsibilities of the object? Who does it collaborate with? What design patterns should be applied? Far more important than knowing the difference between UML 1.4 and 2.0 !
This book at times seems like it is "speaking to" a lead architect or a project manager. What I mean to say by that is that it assumes that the reader has significant control over the planning and direction of a software project.
Nonetheless, even if you are only responsible for some very small piece of your company's projects and products, I would still recommend this book and encourage you to apply some "scaled down" modifications of the book's advice to your piece of the project.
My OOP epiphany came from Grady Booch's book, way long time ago. Suddenly I realized why objects were good.
While polymorphism is cool, encapsulation is 75% of why objects are cool. It is sort of like an interface: you see the buttons but not the wiring. Before objects, only the most disciplined coders kept their grubby fingers off the internal bits of other people's procedures (it was called "structured programming").
Object make it easy to Do the Right Thing. Inheritance and polymorphism are little bonuses.
One way to learn about objects is to read other peoples' code. I learned a lot by reading the source code for the Delphi VCL framework. Even just looking at the documentation for Java will help you see what a single object class should do and how it is designed to be used by other objects.
Start a project of your own and pay attention when you want to sub-class your own classes and find that you have to go back and break up some protected methods so you can override just one piece of a process instead of replacing all of it. See how ancestors talk to descendants by calling abstract functions. In other words, go make a lot of mistakes and learn from them.
Enjoy!
Frankly, re-reading old David Parnas papers on information hiding helps me get in the right state of mind. The case studies may not be directly applicable but you should be able to get some useful generalizations out of them.
My epiphany happened when I tried to implement a very OO problem (dynamically and recursively building SQL statements) in VB6. The best way to understand polymorphism or inheritance is to need it and not be able to use it.
One thing that will definitely help you is working on a well-known, respected open source project. Either dig through the source code and see how things are done or try to make some additions / modifications. You'll find that there isn't one style or one right answer for most problems, but by looking at several projects, you'll be able to get a wide view of how things can be done. From there, you'll begin to develop your own style and will hopefully make some contributions to open source in the process.
I think you have to attempt and fail at implementing OO solutions. That's how I did it anyway. What I mean by fail is that you end up writing smelly code while successfully delivering a working solution. After it's written you'll get a feel for where things didn't quite feel right. You may have some epiphanies, and/or you may go and hunt for a slicker solution from other programmers. Undoubtedly you'll implement some variation of standard design patterns by accident. In hindsight, a light will click on (oh! so that's what a visitor is for), and then understanding will accelerate.
As others have said, I think tooling through some good OO open source code is a good idea. So is working with more experienced programmers who would be willing to critique your work. However understanding comes through doing.
You might want to try to read (and write) some Smalltalk for a while. Squeak is a free implementation that can show you the power of a fully object-oriented environment (unlike java or .net). All library code source is included. The language itself is incredibly simple. You'll find that java and c# are slowly adding the features well-known to Smalltalk since 1980.
Tortoise HG is extrodanarily well designed piece of OO open source software (written in Python).
If you already understand the basics, building something from scratch in a fully object oriented language will be a good step in fully understanding OOP software architecture. If you don't know Python, Python Essential Reference will take you through the language in full in a few days to a week.
After you understand the language take a look through the software above and you'll have all sorts of epiphanies.
To understand basically anything thoroughly, you need to have a decent knowledge of at least one abstraction level above and one level below it. In the case of OO, others have mentioned design patterns as the layer above OO. This helps a lot to illustrate why OO is useful.
As far as the layer below OO, try to play around with higher-order functions/late binding for a while and get a feel for how these relatively simple constructs are used. Also, try to understand how OO is implemented under the hood (vtables, etc.) and how it can be done in pure C. Once you grok the value of using higher order functions and late binding, you'll quickly realize that OO is just a convenient syntax for passing around a set of related functions and the data they operate on.