51–60 of 128 posts
I'm a backer — I expect the book might contain some Ruby code because it's pretty readable though I'm bothered either way. I am full expecting it'll be an engaging story to teach my kids some of the concepts of programming, which have nothing to do with any particular language.
What makes you think the book is ready? We've been told (KS backers) that the book isn't shipping until October 2015. There is absolutely nothing that you've linked to to indicate that it's ready. Incidentally the book costs less at retail, then even the lowest tier of it's Kickstarter campaign.
I'm not sure whether Ruby is a good intro to programming. It doesn't have first-level functions, instead it has blocks (which can take parameters to serve the same use as functions but aren't). What would syntactically be a reference to a method in other languages instead invokes the method with no arguments. It doesn't have namespaced imports, instead its imports effectively behave like includes (i.e. the "dump truc…
I'm not sure programming is a good intro to programming. It isn't the actual coding, or syntax of languages that trip people up, at least not when first learning. At any age, it is the logic that needs to come first. How code flows, branches, how to work with variables, and build up to more complex structures. It is the same as learning math - you learn how to count to 10, then 100, then start manipulating them via b…
I'm not sure whether Ruby is a good intro to programming. It doesn't have first-level functions, instead it has blocks (which can take parameters to serve the same use as functions but aren't). What would syntactically be a reference to a method in other languages instead invokes the method with no arguments. It doesn't have namespaced imports, instead its imports effectively behave like includes (i.e. the "dump truc…
> I'm not sure whether Ruby is a good intro to programming. > It doesn't have first-level functions, instead it has blocks Hold it right there. If first-level functions, blocks and module systems are the first thing that springs to your mind when talking about teaching people with _zero, none, absolutely no_ previous experience with coding, you are speaking at a completely different level. That reads far more like an…
I taught over 100 people in that time and the vast majority of them are doing just fine now. Many are programming in some other language (Java, c#, python, js are common ones). Something about Ruby worked for them.
I'm not sure whether Ruby is a good intro to programming. It doesn't have first-level functions, instead it has blocks (which can take parameters to serve the same use as functions but aren't). What would syntactically be a reference to a method in other languages instead invokes the method with no arguments. It doesn't have namespaced imports, instead its imports effectively behave like includes (i.e. the "dump truc…
I'm not sure whether Ruby is a good intro to programming. It doesn't have first-level functions, instead it has blocks (which can take parameters to serve the same use as functions but aren't). What would syntactically be a reference to a method in other languages instead invokes the method with no arguments. It doesn't have namespaced imports, instead its imports effectively behave like includes (i.e. the "dump truc…
Well ruby can be written in a very boring way if it's what you don't like : # nobody can say he doesn't understand that code , whatever language he is used to reducer = lambda {|res,val,array| return res+val} def reduce(array,reducer,initial) res=initial for i in 0...array.length res = reducer.call(res,array[i],array) end return res end reduce([1,2,4],reducer,0) # => 7 But there is no perfect language which is a good…
The compiler helped a lot. It's also a lot more consistent. When I started Ruby, I often didn't understand why something I wrote worked. That's not a feeling I got very often from c#.
That's just my experience. But I'd suggest c# is probably a better beginner's language. Especially paired with VS and an outstanding OOB debugging experience far superior and more approachable to anything I've ever seen in Ruby.
I'm not sure whether Ruby is a good intro to programming. It doesn't have first-level functions, instead it has blocks (which can take parameters to serve the same use as functions but aren't). What would syntactically be a reference to a method in other languages instead invokes the method with no arguments. It doesn't have namespaced imports, instead its imports effectively behave like includes (i.e. the "dump truc…
There are so many aspects of Ruby that make it well suited for teaching kids about programming that go WAY, WAY beyond the ridiculous observations you've made. You might as well have pointed out the performance limitations of Ruby too. Installing Ruby is as easy as opening a macbook. It's already there. It's not like little kids, learning the language for the first time are provisioning servers and installing from scratch.
It's not a matter of Ruby programmers being emotionally invested. It's a matter of Ruby, very often, being the right tool for the job. And for teaching purposes, I don't think anything else comes close. The fact that just about everything in Ruby is an object makes for some very interesting syntactical niceties that a child's mind can easily grasp. For children, the higher level the language, the easier it will be to grasp and remember. It doesn't get much easier than
100.times do
I'm not sure whether Ruby is a good intro to programming. It doesn't have first-level functions, instead it has blocks (which can take parameters to serve the same use as functions but aren't). What would syntactically be a reference to a method in other languages instead invokes the method with no arguments. It doesn't have namespaced imports, instead its imports effectively behave like includes (i.e. the "dump truc…
JS will probably mess up my kid's mind as much as ruby. My choices for intro programming language would probably be Haskell and Coffeescript - both has a simple but coherent set of concepts and a straightforward syntax designed around those concepts.
seriously? I had a semi difficult time understanding FP a year and a half into my CS degree
The character's name is 'Ruby' but I don't expect the book itself to be any sort of introduction to ruby-the-language! I'm a backer — I expect the book might contain some Ruby code because it's pretty readable though I'm bothered either way. I am full expecting it'll be an engaging story to teach my kids some of the concepts of programming, which have nothing to do with any particular language.
I've yet to even find a mention of Ruby-the-language on the site.
I'm not sure whether Ruby is a good intro to programming. It doesn't have first-level functions, instead it has blocks (which can take parameters to serve the same use as functions but aren't). What would syntactically be a reference to a method in other languages instead invokes the method with no arguments. It doesn't have namespaced imports, instead its imports effectively behave like includes (i.e. the "dump truc…
This is a book for teaching young kids. Trying to start them off with a language like Java or C# would be a terrible idea; not because they are bad languages, but because they have such a high learning curve. With something like Ruby we can start the child right off with puts 'Hello World' Immediately they have a positive feedback cycle. At this stage they don't need to know that a top level object has been implicitl…
`Console.WriteLine` is also totally unclear as to what it does compared to `puts`, which basically says exactly what it does. /s