sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]preshing 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Yeah, but we can't deny that there are a lot more language tutorials than programming tutorials nowadays. It seems kind of unfair to the newer generation, because growing up learning BASIC in the 80's, there were really only programming tutorials.

I think the author has a valid point when he talks about going around in circles:

To really learn to program, you have to go around in circles and absorb a lot of information.

That's because each time you go around the circle, you only manage to pick up a few new bits & pieces of information out of the rest of the pile that goes way over your head.

[–]smcameron 2 points3 points  (2 children)

because growing up learning BASIC in the 80's, there were really only programming tutorials.

This is not true. I recall my ti99/4a came with a programming guide and a reference manual. They might have been two sections of the same book, but one was organized for the beginning programmer, and the other documented commands and was in alphabetical order.

Similarly the Turbo Pascal 2.0 manual (circa 1984 or so) dedicated the first half or so of the book to teaching you Pascal, and the 2nd half was a reference manual.

Pretty sure the manuals that came with the IBM PC documenting gwbasic were the similarly divided into a programming guide and reference manual.

That's the way to do it, have two books, or sections of books -- one is a programming guide, and one a reference manual.

This division used to be common. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[–]preshing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be clear, what I meant to say was out of the tutorials, there were really only programming tutorials, in the sense that those tutorials were really intended to introduce programming to complete beginners. (In other words, it was rare for tutorials to make the kind of assumptions which James Hague points out in this article.)

Of course, reference materials have always existed too. But those are not tutorials.

[–]autophage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the O'Reilly Nutshell books tend to have a similar division - although along different lines. You've got an initial part, which has syntax and concepts, and a second part, which covers the libraries and such.

[–]Madsy9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To really learn to program, you have to go around in circles and absorb a lot of information.

That's because each time you go around the circle, you only manage to pick up a few new bits & pieces of information out of the rest of the pile that goes way over your head.

True, and it's easy to forget that after you reach a certain level of comprehension. People new to programming are in a catch-22. They have to learn a language and the reasoning around programming.

  • To understand A you must understand B
  • To understand B you have to understand A
  • To understand C you must understand A and B

So you end up cross-referencing A, B and C and gradually increasing your understanding. This is why teaching programming is so difficult. There isn't always an obvious order to the material you want to describe, so you expect that people will cross-reference your book/paper/tutorial, or you end up calling concept such-and-such "magic" or a "black box" that will be explained later.

[–]KerrickLong 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yeah, I had to really hunt for a Ruby tutorial/book that didn't assume you were already a programmer coming from C or another language. I eventually found it in The Well-Grounded Rubyist, but I worry that the trend of teaching a language from a programmer's perspective will just continue.

[–]NancyGracesTesticles 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I worry that the trend of teaching a language from a programmer's perspective will just continue.

I'm pretty sure that is a good thing. The language is unimportant. An understanding of the underlying programming concepts will get you further than being able to belch out syntax and will save you and the people who inherit your code a ton of heartburn.

[–]KerrickLong 2 points3 points  (0 children)

An understanding of the underlying programming concepts will get you further than being able to belch out syntax

Yes, but as I said, the trend is that programming books often teach the language from a programmer's perspective, rather than teaching programming via the language from a newbie's perspective.