7 ms·

> Simpler languages aren't always simpler to actually write software in. I completely agree with this. But when you're learning to program, the goal isn't to w

> Simpler languages aren't always simpler to actually write software in. I completely agree with this. But when you're learning to program, the goal isn't to write software. It's to learn the lessons and concepts that will one day allow you to write software.

steveklabnik 9y ago
This is probably where we disagree. The style you're advocating is "bottom-up" learning, that is, you learn the fundamentals, and then build from there. This is totally valid, but in my general experience of years of teaching, both professionally, and as a hobby, most people don't learn like that. I personally learn like that, so it's a bit frustrating to me that this is true! Most people want to start "top-down", that is, write something useful. After they've got things working, then they want to "dive deeper" and go back down and learn the fundamentals. It's an spiral, not a direct path. Another way to think about this is that bottom-up learning is the same spiral, but at a different level of abstraction. You're teaching software, but not hardware. You don't force people to learn about OSes before they learn about software. You don't force people to learn about hardware before they learn about software. You don't force people to learn about physics before they learn about hardware.
- smoe 9y ago
  Do you think this depends on the peoples prior experience level whether they prefer either way? Or is mostly personal? At least in my case I remember when I had C as a first language in school about 14 years ago, after an initial rush of joy, I got a bit frustrated because I couldn't build anything "cool" and practical quickly. I was relieved when we went on to the much more practical seeming Java. But these days I have all the tools I need to get stuff done quickly and prefer learning new things more bottom-up. In fact top-down often annoys me, because it presumes what I might find useful. I think a mixed approach as often used when teaching musical instruments could work well. For example justin guitar online course splits up the practice sessions in parts that are tedious muscle-memory/rhythm training you have to push trough and parts to teach you songs from various genres as quickly as possible. So you can actually apply and most importantly enjoy what you are learning from week one. Additionally he strongly encourages doing explicit ear training and some music theory from the get go for the long term benefit. Translated to Rust I think something like rustbyexample.com but instead of splitting it up by language features, have it categorized by domain and experience level would be pretty cool. If I'm interesting in game development I can start right away with simple cli games and later add graphics and if I'm into networked services I choose that path. Both point to the same deeper concepts but like when learning an instrument it is much more encouraging when at any level you can play the types of music you like instead of having to play what the teacher likes.
  - steveklabnik 9y ago
    This is a very interesting question. I'm not sure! Your analogy to music is quite interesting too. I'm going to give this some thought :)

steveklabnik 9y ago

This is probably where we disagree. The style you're advocating is "bottom-up" learning, that is, you learn the fundamentals, and then build from there. This is totally valid, but in my general experience of years of teaching, both professionally, and as a hobby, most people don't learn like that. I personally learn like that, so it's a bit frustrating to me that this is true! Most people want to start "top-down", that is, write something useful. After they've got things working, then they want to "dive deeper" and go back down and learn the fundamentals. It's an spiral, not a direct path. Another way to think about this is that bottom-up learning is the same spiral, but at a different level of abstraction. You're teaching software, but not hardware. You don't force people to learn about OSes before they learn about software. You don't force people to learn about hardware before they learn about software. You don't force people to learn about physics before they learn about hardware.

smoe 9y ago
Do you think this depends on the peoples prior experience level whether they prefer either way? Or is mostly personal? At least in my case I remember when I had C as a first language in school about 14 years ago, after an initial rush of joy, I got a bit frustrated because I couldn't build anything "cool" and practical quickly. I was relieved when we went on to the much more practical seeming Java. But these days I have all the tools I need to get stuff done quickly and prefer learning new things more bottom-up. In fact top-down often annoys me, because it presumes what I might find useful. I think a mixed approach as often used when teaching musical instruments could work well. For example justin guitar online course splits up the practice sessions in parts that are tedious muscle-memory/rhythm training you have to push trough and parts to teach you songs from various genres as quickly as possible. So you can actually apply and most importantly enjoy what you are learning from week one. Additionally he strongly encourages doing explicit ear training and some music theory from the get go for the long term benefit. Translated to Rust I think something like rustbyexample.com but instead of splitting it up by language features, have it categorized by domain and experience level would be pretty cool. If I'm interesting in game development I can start right away with simple cli games and later add graphics and if I'm into networked services I choose that path. Both point to the same deeper concepts but like when learning an instrument it is much more encouraging when at any level you can play the types of music you like instead of having to play what the teacher likes.
- steveklabnik 9y ago
  This is a very interesting question. I'm not sure! Your analogy to music is quite interesting too. I'm going to give this some thought :)