Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 6 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
My 11 year old kid brother wants to learn to program games. He has never programmed but would like to learn programming. His interest lies with games and game programming and he understands that it can be difficult but he wants to do that. So, obviously, I turned to SO folks to know what you feel on how he should go about it. Remember, please suggest on
Areas that beginners can choose,
how to begin in that area,
what to read in the beginning,
initial languages in the beginning etc.
Once the beginning part is taken care of, you may also suggest the intermediate and advanced stuff but this question is about very beginning level. If there are areas like Web games Vs. console games Vs generic computer games, then please advice on the areas. As I said he has never programmed, he might want to try all the areas and choose the one he likes the best. I hope this is not too much to ask for someone who is in this field but if this question is huge, please advice on how to break it into multiple questions. ~Thanks.
I started my programming career writing games when I was 15 and it was a lot of fun (even though I wrestled with C++ for 3 years just because "that's what's used for writing games"). My two cents:
Start with a programming language that is easy to use (NOT C or C++)
Get a beginners book for that programming language (not directed at games)
Decide on some API or environment that provides what's needed for writing games. I started out by doing snake, space invaders etc in the console, but any 2D-environment will do (stay way from 3D for as long as you can; there are much more important things to learn first). SDL/GLUT for OpenGL has bindings in almost any language. Pygame for Python looks promising too. Using HTML5's canvas-element, you could even write the programs in the browser using JavaScript. Im not sure what's best these days, but there you have some suggestions.
Find a community for inspiration and help when stuck. I used gamedev.net. Since we're on stackoverflow, gamedev.stackexchange.com should also be a natural choice :)
Start small. Very small. I mean really tiny. Then take small steps to new challenges. Please don't write an MMORPG.
The game design and graphics are fun, but focus on the programming (for now at least). When you've written a simple game, learn how to do the same thing better.
Set a goal. Imagine the game that you'd want to make. Don't try to make that one immediately, but make sure that each new thing you learn or make takes you one step closer. Don't learn what you don't need so to speak (there's simply too much too learn).
I wish you and your brother the best of luck, I never regret going down the path he's about to take!
For a beginning game developing enthousiast I think you can't go wrong with the combination Python + Pygame. Python is a great, elegant (and easy to learn) all-round language and lots of great tutorials are available for Pygame which explain the basics of (mostly) 2D game programming.
There's this post on Gamedev stackexchange where the poster is in literally the same position.
Quoting my answer from there:
I'm also 15, so I guess that could help? :P
I've recently started learning Python
(been doing C++ for a year or so), and
I'm finding it much easier to learn
than C++. There's a lot less pitfalls,
and you need little code to get
something on the screen - what I find
makes you want to continue.
And there's wrappers like Pygame and
Pyglet over SDL/OpenGL for the
graphics side.
And before he starts making simple
games, I would advise learning a
language for at least a couple of
months. (Of course, text based games
like guess the number and hangman are
good exercises during this time)
And for what to read; I can advise Invent With Python. It goes from learning the language in a very gamedev way - which is a good step to making sure he stays interested; I doubt many kids his age are going to want to learn all about variables and loops, moreso being able to make a game - all the way to seamlessly introducting PyGame and graphics.
It could take some time until he can program a proper game...
But as I see it, he should start with Java as it is easy to learn and good for basic games.
Starting out he wouldn't be able to do much more than a guessing game, but he shouldn't get frustrated, this will take time.
I think you should buy him a book on java, and start from the basics.
You would get many different answers on this one as it is mostly personal opinion...
Teach him the basics of programming: variables, declarations, properties, methods, arguments, classes, arrays, loops. I suggest C# as a starting language, it seems simpler than C or C++ to start with, in my opinion. Once he understands those concepts it shouldn't be extremely hard for him to jump in and follow some XNA tutorials on a simple game like pong or something.
Game Development, part of the Stack Exchange, is a great resource for these types of things. It's loaded with posts like this one.
How about instead of forcing him to learn a language first, get him involved in using a framework where he can readily see results to maintain an interest. Something along the lines of RPGMaker could be sufficient.
My reasoning for this would be that, yes, you want him to learn the basics of making games and introduce programming as well, but you don't want to burn him out on the formalities of a language.
If he is 14, then he is of high school age (assuming US based...), and there is a good chance that there are programming courses available to him there. Let him whet his teeth on those to grind out the difficulties of introducing programming, and then once he is interested in expanding beyond the bounds of the toolset introduce him to the answers posted by the other users.
My two cents...I've seen kids give up on programming before because they jumped right into game making and quickly got frustrated...
In the beginning, make sure you keep it fun. Try mocking old games like 1-stage of contra or air hockey. And use a programming language with easy implementation of timer. Because timers, I think are the easiest way to show some visible effects. I would recommend visual basic or objective-c (I know many people won't agree, BUT it is that damn easy with the power of Xcode). Thumbs up ! Have fun.
I agree with ChristopheD about Python and Pygame. When it comes to languages Python is great for beginners because it is very high level therefore so easier to understand and the syntax is clean and simple. And Pygame is a great library for learning game programming.
Eventually he'll want to move into C++, which as I understand is the go to language for game development. But Python and Pygame would be a better start, especially for an 11 year old.
A good series of easy to read online books are the following three:
http://greenteapress.com/thinkpython/thinkpython.html to learn Python
http://inventwithpython.com/ this site has two books, what to make games in plain Python and the other to make games using the Pygame library for Python. Once he gets through these three books he should be able to start making his own games in Python using Pygame and then eventually move on to more serious game development langauges/tools.
Write some simple scenarios for a game such as Wesnoth is maybe a good start.
Learning basis of programming is also important. A langage such as python is probably a good start.
The language is clear and easy to learn and teach.
And it is very extentable.
This is a -very basic- game source code (Butterfly adventure 1.0) made with javascript to start learn programming. Only basic codes (variable, if, switch, function, event, etc.) used.
It may be useful to start learning game development.
Play the game link
Source code link
Video tutorials (Only in Turkish) link
Screenshot
Have fun.
IMHO he should start learning C.
then switch to OpenGL later once he has the grip of basic C constructs.
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
I've heard a few debates in the past over which is more mature: RubyCocoa or Obj-C/Cocoa... but I have felt that the answers jet right over the "newbie" that would truly appreciate an answer.
So the question is: for a total beginner, with little-to-no programming experience, is it easier to learn Ruby and explore Cocoa via the bridge (then possibly tackle Obj-C) or to straight up jump right into Objective-C and Cocoa.
Both communities are strong and have a plethora of resources, but as many people have pointed out the syntax of Obj-C is just daunting. Perhaps for a true beginner it would be easier to learn Ruby then tackle Objective-C?
Update: I apologize, but when I said "learn Ruby and explore Cocoa" I did not mean to learn programming via RubyCocoa, but rather to learn Ruby (and once one feels confident enough) begin to explore Cocoa with the possibility of leveraging their growing skill-set to tackle Obj-C.
I would not recommend learning to program with RubyCocoa.
I love Ruby and think it's a great language to learn programming, but the RubyCocoa bridge isn't documented well enough that I'd recommend it as a learning environment. You'd be learning general programming concepts, the Cocoa frameworks and the quirks of RubyCocoa all at the same time. That's a lot of stuff to shove into your head.
If you're bound and determined to start with Cocoa, start by learning Objective-C. Otherwise, you could learn Ruby to begin with and then transition to Objective-C once you feel a little more comfortable as a programmer. And once you've done all that, you can use RubyCocoa, but then you'll know enough that it won't make you go crazy.
I would start with what Apple is preaching: Objective-C/Cocoa
Writing Code is the Easy Part
No point really in:
Try to see which is easy, if you are opting for the easy way, you will always get it wrong.. fear not what is hard, for hard is to fear not.
Trying to compare languages/approaches that way, as per the post I added, thinking what's easy/nice/hard in this case is a question of syntax, which ultimately boils down to interpretation, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Depending on what they will ultimately attempt to do with the technology you will find somethings are "easier" than others in one approach or the other..easy is a hard thing to define
Only one question matters: What does one know before being exposed to any of the two approaches? -- you said:
for a total beginner, with little-to-no programming experience
My answer:
Often near where I live tourists ask:
"How do I get to placename X from here?"
People here usually answer:
"If I were you, and I was trying to get to placename X, I wouldn't start from here.."
So.. the answer to your question is:
Neither
Total beginners should always study the basics of programming as per what #Tafkas said.. (not necessarily needing to study OOP languages.. but programming...) before making any kind of decision on what to study and/or implement. (This + requirements gathering)
..Otherwise the people learning these language/technology skills will be just another set of script kiddies on their way to becoming copy paste code monkeys
The problem with starting with RubyCocoa is that you end up learning both ruby and cocoa and the interaction between the two at the same time. I would say learn ruby, or learn Objective-C/Cocoa. Jumping right into RubyCocoa is going to throw you off.
It sounds like your goal is to learn to program in Cocoa, using either Ruby or Objective-C as the language.
While I've never used Ruby (or RubyCocoa, for that matter), my understanding is that Cocoa is written with Objective-C as the primary language, and the bridges (Python and Ruby) come in second. While they generally work well, there are some rough edges that aren't there when using Cocoa from Objective-C.
I would say that you should go the Objective-C/Cocoa route. It might not be bad to start with another language first - C if you want to learn it (which would be useful, since Objective-C is a superset of C), or something like Java if you want to go the OO route.
That's not to say that RubyCocoa doesn't work or isn't useful. It's great for what it does, but I don't think that it is the place to start with Cocoa programming.
I would suggest that if your going to be serious about writing Applications for OSX and/or the iPhone I would highly suggest you get your feet wet with Objective-C and Cocoa.
The reason are simple:
The Documentation from Apple on Objective-C is excellent.
You're going to get more help from the community here at Stack Overflow because there are more Objective-C/Cocoa developers than RubyCocoa. (from what I've seen so far).
The Objective-C Developers are very good at helping each other out and I could not find a better group of developers with open arms to new people learning the language.
Great Developer books are available as well as outside training if you want it.
The big one that I see is that you can NOT develop for the iPhone using RubyCocoa. But if you learn Objective-C/Cocoa you can pretty much dive right into Cocoa Touch.
There is no guarantee that Apple will keep RubyCocoa updated as much as they do with Cocoa.
Don't get me wrong, learning Ruby is a great language and I don't think you can go wrong learning it. However right now if you have the option right now to learn either or, go with Objective-C/Cocoa.
I think you're in for a harder road by going with RubyCocoa if you want to build serious applications for either OS X or especially later for the iPhone.
The main reason is simply being able to find answers to common programming questions that you might have. There is a burgeoning community around Objective-C/Cocoa with a lot of forum support, code snippets, samples, etc. It will be infinitely easier for you to rapidly learn how to you use Cocoa if you understand Objective-C. It will also be easier for your peers to troubleshoot your code and help you out when you get stuck. Objective-C is really not that hard to learn, especially if you have some kind of grounding in OO concepts.
I would suggest to start with an oo language such as c++ or java. After understanding the basic comcepts of oo it should not be to hard to learn objective-c.
The problem with ruby cocoa is that there is no guarantee apple will support this in the future. They have dropped the cocoa-java bridge in the past.
I think this depends on how much the beginner already knows. If you already know object oriented programming, you should definitely learn objective-c. Thinking in paradigms like messaging, delegation, and categories will help a lot to understand the Cocoa system. If you've got a few languages under your belt, but no object oriented programming, then you probably also have enough experience to learn OOP through Cocoa, but understand that it handles things differently from languages like C++. If you have very little programming experience, then ruby may be better in the short term.
One other advantage of objective-c to keep in mind is the manual reference counting memory management paradigm. It can be much easier to deal with than malloc/free, but it doesn't allow the laziness that Java and scripting languages engender.
I downloaded Squeak, the Image file, and the Sources file, but I can't figure out how to write Smalltalk code. Is there something obvious I'm missing? Is Squeak even the right IDE for serious Smalltalk development?
Squeak is a great environment for learning Smalltalk, but don't confuse that particular implementation with 'Smalltalk'. Some of the other implementations are very professional, but not surprisingly come at a financial cost.
Squeak is an excellent IDE for serious Smalltalk development. That is not to say that it cannot be improved. The pharo guys are eleminating from the squeak image the parts you might not want for professional development.
Download (or buy) the book Squeak by Example to get started.
I don't think Squeak is really oriented towards "serious Smalltalk development". It's intended as a first programming environment for children. Which isn't to say that you can't do useful stuff with it, it's just not aimed as much towards large-scale development.
Check out the Wiki for getting started tips. It's been a while since I last used Squeak, but I don't remember it being particularly hard to get started.
Squeak is nice to learn the language and to see how creative a system like it can make people, which has two aspects: you see many interesting ideas and new concepts tried, but also a lot of junk and bad looking (some even abandoned) experiments.
I admit that, for a beginner, it may be hard to see the big picture, or if there is any at all. An example is the use of multiple GUI schemes (MVC vs. Morphic): at a time, where the mainstream is junping on MVC (they just understood in Java, what the ST guys talked about 20 yrs ago, and so they went from callbacks and AW to Swing), the Squeak guys are fed with MVC and move on, trying other aproaches. There is also a lack of "professional look" in squeak. And a chaotic community, some of which are quite ego-driven individuals.
It can be argued, if Squeak alltogether is good or bad for Smalltalk's reputation, as it certainly pisses of all those who want to write "conservative" windows apps, with menubars, icons, toolbars etc. Also performance used to be a problem (but since ELiot is working on the VM, is getting better...)
On the other side, there are wonderful applications, which are almost impossible in other environments: look at croquet (having a browser on the wall, with fishes swimming around), Etoys, Scratch, nice Seaside apps etc. And also almost all things which are now considered mainstream have originated from the Smalltalk and the Squeak community. And these guys are moving on...
So please take a look at the other Smalltalk's too: there are at least GNU-ST, Visualworks and Smalltalk/X. The later two are more biased towards blassical business apps, and the language and base libraries are almost the same. VW is not free, for commercial work, though.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
My questions is simple!
Would you start learning Smalltalk if you had the time? Why? Why not?
Do you already know Smalltalk? Why would you recommend Smalltalk? Why not?
Personally I'm a Ruby on Rails programmer and I really like it. However, I'm thinking about Smalltalk because I read various blogs and some people are calling Ruby something like "Smalltalk Light". The second reason why I'm interested in Smalltalk is Seaside.
Maybe someone has made the same transition before?
EDIT: Actually, what got me most excited about Smalltalk/Seaside is the following Episode of WebDevRadio: Episode 52: Randal Schwartz on Seaside (among other things)
If you like Ruby you'll probably like Smalltalk. IIRC Seaside has been ported to the Gemstone VM, which is part of their Gemstone/S OODBMS. This has much better thread support than Ruby, so it is a better back-end for a high-volume system. This might be a good reason to take a close look at it.
Reasons to learn Smalltalk:
It's a really, really nice programming environment. Once you've got your head around it (it tends to be a bit of a culture shock for people used to C++ or Java) you'll find it to be a really good environment to work in. Even a really crappy smalltalk like the Old Digitalk ones I used is a remarkably pleasant system to use. Many of the old XP and O-O guru types like Kent Beck and Martin Fowler cut their teeth on Smalltalk back in the day and can occasionally be heard yearning for the good old days in public (Thanks to Frank Shearer for the citation, +1) - Agile development originated on this platform.
It's one of the most productive development platforms in history.
Several mature implementations exist and there's a surprisingly large code base out there. At one point it got quite trendy in financial market circles where developer productivity and time-to-market is quite a big deal. Up until the mid 1990s it was more or less the only game in town (With the possible exception of LISP) if you wanted a commercially supported high-level language that was suitable for application development.
Deployment is easy - just drop the image file in the appropriate directory.
Not really a reason, but the Gang of Four Book uses Smalltalk for quite a few of their examples.
Reasons not to learn Smalltalk:
It's something of a niche market. You may have trouble finding work. However if you are producing some sort of .com application where you own the servers this might not be an issue.
It's viewed as a legacy system by many. There is relatively little new development on the platform (although Seaside seems to be driving a bit of a renaissance).
It tends not to play nicely with traditional source control systems (at least as of the early-mid 90's when I used it). This may or may not still be the case.
It is somewhat insular and likes to play by itself. Python or Ruby are built for integration from the ground up and tend to be more promiscuous and thus easier to integrate with 3rd party software. However, various other more mainstream systems suffer from this type of insularity to a greater or lesser degree and that doesn't seem to impede their usage much.
Well, since you mentioned me by name, I feel I should chime in.
As I said in that podcast interview, and as I have repeatedly demonstrated in my blog at http://MethodsAndMessages.vox.com/, this is "the year of smalltalk". And having now done Smalltalk advocacy for the past ten months, I can see that it really is happening. More customers are turning to Smalltalk and Seaside, and the Smalltalk vendors are all working hard to capture this new influx of attention. More larger Smalltalk conferences are being planned. More job postings are being posted. More blog postings are being made.
If you turn to Smalltalk today, you are not alone. There are many others who are out there as well.
Edit
Well, a number of years later, I'm now recommending Dart instead. It's a great language originated by Google but now owned by an ECMA committee. It runs serverside in node.js style, but also clientside in modern browsers by transpiling to JavaScript. Lots of good books, blogs, help channels, IDE support, public live pastebin. I think it's definitely got legs... enough so that I'm writing courseware to teach it onsite or online, and I'm pretty sure there's a book or two in the works from me. And Gilad Bracha, an old-time Smalltalker is a major contributor to the design, so there's a lot of Smalltalk in Dart.
Smalltalk is a good language to learn, and the great thing is that it only takes a day to do it. It's a lot more than just an academic language. People are building huge, scalable, replicable applications handling billions of dollars. They just don't talk about it much. See, for instance, GemStone and Orient Overseas Container Lines:
A Shipping Industry Case Study.
Seaside is a good reason to learn Smalltalk, but I don't think you'll find it orders of magnitude better than Rails.
The thing that convinced me was GemStone. I really like Gemstone's GLASS (GemStone, Linux, Apache, Smalltalk, Seaside). The killer part of that is GemStone, which handles all the object persistence for you mostly without you thinking about it. Seeing some of their demos and hearing about what people are doing with GemStone reset my idea of what "big application" meant.
The part that bugs me the most about Rails is the object-relational mapping. That's nothing against Ruby because it sucks just as hard in GLORP (which handles ActiveRecord for Smalltalk), or Perl, or anything else. Mapping objects to database tables is just painful. With GemStone, thinking about the database disappears, so the work with the database disappears too. It's like a huge stone (or a troop of monkeys) is taken off my back.
> couldn't find a Smalltalk development environment that didn't cost both arms and a leg
Google - free smalltalk
Cincom Smalltalk, Squeak, GNU Smalltalk
Learning Smalltalk will give you a grounding in object oriented software development from the perspective of the man who invented OO (Alan Kay). The idea of a overlapping windowing environment came from Smalltalk.
A stumbling block to learning Smalltalk is that it is a message passing system with a strange syntax for flow control like:
i < 60
ifTrue: [ self walk ]
It has a very mature class library that has a consistency I've not seen too many places. The class library in all environments (even commercial Smalltalks) has available source which allows you to learn from the masters of the language. When programming Smalltalk, I always ask the question how is it done in the environment.
Smalltalk is generally implemented in an image which is a live environment for all the objects in your system.
The interactive debugger really seperates Smalltalk from Ruby.
Seaside is the web development framework and has given Smalltalk a new spotlight. It is a continuation based environment that allows for intra-hit debugging and a smooth Rich Client type development experience (top application flow can be designed in a single method). It's integration with script.aculo.us has been done in such a way that it is easily called from within Smalltalk.
Nigel, one quote I have is this:
Although it's now a long time since I did anything with it, I nominate Smalltalk, I still haven't come across anything quite like it for being able to transfer thoughts into computer code. It's not just the language: It's the wonderful browser environment, the libraries, and the culture of writing clear, well-designed code as quickly as anything else can crank out spaghetti. When the participants at JavaOne were extolling how Java was so much more productive than anything else, I needed a brown paper bag. Oh well, back to sorting out my classpaths... -- Martin Fowler (Software Development Magazine, Jan 2001)
I found it here.
Would disagree with the poster who reckons you wouldn’t use Smalltalk for large apps – that’s precisely where it shines. But I have created fairly groovy (note lowercase) prototype apps in under a week too.
I learned OO in ST starting in 92, incredibly glad I did so. It gave me a real background in OO. Thinking in classes. No types. ST has a real emphasis on messaging. If you want to know something send an object a message and get an answer. IMHO, the ethos and the IDE really encourage you to do the right thing with your coupling and cohesion.
In my Java day job, I’m stuck with files, generics, IDE’s like eclipse that are orders of magnitude less productive that any ST IDE. I was using ST the only time I finished a development ahead of schedule. In fact it was so productive, and we got so much reuse I had to be moved off to another project, as I had nothing to do! (Ok, maybe I could have spent time learning to estimate...)
Download squeak, find a good book and play. Only downside is that if your day gig is using Java or C#, you’ll end up wishing you could use ST. You’d get home sooner.
Chris Brooks
I recommend everybody to learn Lisp (Scheme) or Smalltalk.
Smalltalks have wonderful IDEs which you dont want to miss once you got over the culture shock. And yes, there are more than one free ones: Squeak, Dolphin, Smalltalk/X, and Visualworks (Non-Comercial).
Lisp may be even cleaner in its mathematic foundation, though.
regards
PS: actually I recommend learning both !
I do not know Ruby..
Smalltalk is a pure OO language. If you feel the need to really understand OO, and not just the simulated OO of most popular 'OO' languages (like C++, Java, etc), then I would recommend that you play with smalltalk.
In smalltalk everything is an object, with attributes, behavior and meta. In the simulations you have data types that you use in your objects.
I would say play with it, you will only benefit.
I'm totally in your shoes. Im using RoR and looking into Smalltalk land. Here's some pros & cons I find important:
Pros:
Mature & stable environment
Fast development cycle
Makes you think more and write less
Cons:
Requires different thinking
Still didn't quite grasp it
It's quite funny how I got to know about Smalltalk. It was this one thing that keept popping up in Google results when searching for Lisp and Erlang stuff. One day I checked it out and was amazed with nice windows environment. Few moments later I've found Aida/Web framework. I was hooked and started learning Smalltalk through web development with this framework.
Still not quite there, but it's so damn interesting I just can't sit still... :-) I'm having fun again.
Would not start learning it if I had the time. Why not? Because it would be more productive and lucrative financially to learn C# or Java.
On the other hand if your a hobbyist, and would like to go on an archeological dig, then I'd suggest spending some time looking at the What, When, Why and how of smalltalk by researching Alan Kay. Fascinating story and an incredible person (after all, he earned the Turning Award). Then maybe play with squeak a little to get a feeling for the language. After this you might have a newly found respect/understanding of blocks, closures, and Object Oriented principles.
I know and use Smalltalk, have for about 15 years, still maintaining it, and would not recommend Smalltalk to a friend. Why not? Employment is a good thing to have and keep getting. Although you can learn a lot from Smalltalk you can't easily turn that into gainfully being employed in this day and age.
Also, you appeared to be excited over Seaside and I would assume the Seaside/GemStone partnership. I've used GemStone for quite some time and the two together are very appealing. I hope they can get the market share and momentum required to be successful.
Don't! If you really start learning it, you might not want to programm in something else anymore ever.
This may be not true, if you are a lisp programmer.
Absolutely, learn Smalltalk! This is 2015 and Smalltalk is on the rise again, thanks to Pharo. Pharo is FREE. Pharo is evolving quickly into a powerful enterprise tool. At Version 4.0, and soon to be 5.0, it has matured a great deal in just four years!
Then there's Amber, which is Smalltalk for the web. It's also FREE and evolving quickly.
Despite Smalltalk's reputation, this is not your father's Smalltalk. Modern Smalltalk is exciting and promising.
It's true that Smalltalk jobs are not (yet) plentiful. But if enough of you aggregate to a new wave of Smalltalkers, then the industry will adapt to it and we'll see wider adoption of Smalltalk in business. The question is, do you have the vision?
I was taught Smalltalk in one of the first graduate college level Object-Orient Programming courses (circa 1988). The teacher thought it best to start was a "pure" OO langauge,before moving on to a more trendy one (we did a bit of C++ at the end of the semester).
By that measure, it's still best to start with pure OO, although these days we have Java & C#, both of which are "nearly-pure" OO -- close enough that you can get by ignoring the non-OO features of them, and limiting yourself to the Pure-OO subset of the langauges.
If you want a better understanding of Extreme Programming (and even Scrum) I'd say yes.
Why impatient Java programmers need to learn Smalltalk:
http://www.dafydd.net/archive/2010/why-smalltalk-isnt-just-another-language/
I've been a software engineer for quite a few years now. I've heard people bring up Smalltalk a few times, and certainly Smalltalk has been around since about 1980, but it's one of those languages that's never seemed to make it into the software mainstream. Sort of like Objective C, CLIPS, PL/I, etc--something you may have heard of, but something that most folks have never programmed in.
I probably wouldn't take the time to learn Smalltalk unless I needed to for a particular job. I looked at some Smalltalk tutorials and examples briefly a few years back, and it looks like it has some clear advantages for certain aspects of OO programming (like the message concept seems cool). But sadly, it is not mainstream, and doesn't seem to be gaining much momentum.
This thread has become very actual for me. I'm planning for a Software migration to a web-application. It's a database based software. I'm especially checking the alternatives
1) Rails
2) Seaside
If I can get the figures for the Gemstone/S as Database, I'll consider that also. So for me it means I have to learn Smalltalk (better) than before. Because it could be that it will be my work for the next 15 years. You would (and should not) work with software you don't like for that long ;-). I've the impression Gemstone/S is one of the "killer" applications. But persistence of Objects still is a very difficult field....
1) Yes! It's always good to learn a language. If you are going to learn a language, make it a powerful, influential language that can be learnt easily and quickly.
Smalltalk remains a pre-eminent language and environment for learning OO concepts.
It is all objects, all the way down. This makes for a really consistent approach to working.
Integers are instances of Class Integer. Strings are a collection of character objects. Classes are singleton instance objects for the class they define.
Control structures work by sending get messages to instances of Class Boolean.
Even anonymous methods (blocks of code, aka blocks) are objects.
Everything is done by sending a message to an object. The syntax can be fitted on a postcard.
The clarity of the concepts and their implementation in Smalltalk mean that you can develop ways of thought which transfer directly into Java, Ruby and C#. I expect it's true for Python, too.
It's so good for making the concepts clear that a major UK University used Smalltalk to train 5,000 people a year in object-oriented computing.
Squeak 5, has just been released. It has gained major performance increases from its new Cog/Spur VM, which features with progressive garbage-collection.
Pharo 4 has a lovely clean-looking desktop theme. The next version, Pharo 5, will be released soon. It will move to using the Cog/Spur VM, it will have about 5,000 classes in the release, and additional packages of classes are readily available from the net via the Configuration Browser tool.
Squeak 5 is performant even on first-gen Raspberry Pis, and is almost 50% faster on the new $5 Raspberry Pi zero. $99 buys you a Raspberry Pi 2, screen and case - running a mature, fully feature-complete IDE.
Leading edge research is being done on co-ordinated, distributed OO systems in Smalltalk (e.g. Naiad and Spoon).
Some of the world's largest corporate databases are run on Smalltalk - including tracking of 60% of the world's shipping containers, and trading systems in the world's largest bank.
You can use Smalltalk as a sort of super-powered CoffeeScript, writing in Amber Smalltalk and transpiling to JavaScript, running in the browser.
Squeak, Pharo, and Amber are all Free, Open-source, open-licenced languages and environments.
Squeak and Pharo provide write-once, run anywhere facilities for MacOS, Windows and Linux. (Possibly RiscOS, too).
Dolphin Smalltalk is targetted firmly at native Windows look-and-feel, and lets you compile closed .exes of your finished work for distribution to end users. Further development of Dolphin by the vendor has stopped, but it is completely functional, and, like all Smalltalks, designed to be massively extensible. (Did I mention that Pharo now has 5,000 classes, compared to Squeak's 3,000? Pharo is a fork of Squeak 3.9)
**There is a How-to guide for installing and starting Squeak, Amber, Pharo, Cuis and Dolphin at: **
http://beginningtosmalltalk.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/how-to-get-smalltalk-up-and-running.html
The Seaside web framework runs on Squeak and on Pharo. It's a wonderful mature tool, as is the more traditional AidaWeb framework.
VisualAge, VisualWorks and Gemstone all provide enterprise-grade robust systems. Gemstone provides an infinitely scalable object database with transactions and persistence.
2) Yes - I do already use it.
I learnt it via the Open University, and was immediately productive in Ruby (a copy of the Pickaxe book and the library reference by my side). It helped me enormously with Java, and with Xerox Moo-code.
I have just returned to it to write apps to control manage and distribute responsive, massively multi-platform mobile apps.
I expect that soon I'll be re-writing my JavaScript mobile apps using Amber, too.
I don't really know what you're looking for.
If you are looking for a different language to write in, I'd think that would depend heavily on the libraries available. I know neither Ruby nor Smalltalk, but it seems likely that the most efficient way to write Ruby on Rails-sorts of applications may not be Smalltalk.
If you are looking to learn the ideas behind Ruby, this might be a very good move. I don't have anything quantitative, but I always felt better about using tools (such as language systems) if I knew more than just the tools, if I kmew the ideas behind them or how they worked.
If you want to learn different sorts of object-oriented languages, you might well want to learn Smalltalk (if it differs significantly from Ruby), something like Java or C++, and perhaps also the Common Lisp Object System.
If you just want to learn something different, Smalltalk may well be a good choice. I'd also suggest Common Lisp, and other people will doubtless have other suggestions (can you get a good Forth system nowadays?).
Yes, I'm interested in it. Tried to start once already, but couldn't find a Smalltalk development environment that didn't cost both arms and a leg.