4 ms·

The paper's title is Purpose-First Programming: A Programming Learning Approach for Learners Who Care Most About What Code Achieves This URL's author says the

The paper's title is Purpose-First Programming: A Programming Learning Approach for Learners Who Care Most About What Code Achieves This URL's author says the paper's author "invented purpose-first programming," but I think it's proper to clarify that the paper's author has demonstrated positive results from a different ("new"?) learning approach, and then named it "purpose-first programming." I would argue that "we" already value purpose-first programming - we're concerned with what the software does moreso than the syntax required to make it happen. But academia, anecdotally, doesn't usually value purpose-first programming.

paledot 6y ago
Perhaps "purpose-first programming education" would be a better way to phrase it. Which, yes, is incredibly valuable. I recently adapted my learning process from tutorials to taking a problem I already know how to solve with a different language or tool and solving it with something new. It frees the mind space required to define a problem space, figure out process, etc., and allows me to focus on learning how to do that thing with this tool. Then if I'm attempting something I don't really understand, I'll use tools I understand well.
chongli 6y ago
The first year computer science course that I’m currently assisting at my university has followed a curriculum and philosophy based on the book HtDP by Felleisen et al [1]. The model we follow is called the “design recipe” which teaches students to write the documentation for a function as well as some basic examples and tests, all before writing a single line of code for the function itself. The very first of all these steps is to write the purpose statement which serves to document what a function does. As a teaching tool, it helps the students to organize their thoughts and plan their function before they start. This book is almost 20 years old. It derives from earlier works such as SICP. The concept of writing a purpose statement before you write any code is not a new idea at all. But it seems to be a very good idea. If you can’t write one sentence describing what problem your function solves then you’re probably not ready to start writing it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Design_Programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Design_Programs
- ilmariku 6y ago
  The approach you're explaining makes logical sense, but that's a really boring way to learn programming. It could work for CS-students, which are pre-selected in a way, but I still wouldn't teach students that methodically. There's just no fun there. For example, I'm an adult-ADHD developer in my 30's and really good at my work. I started programming, by just doing fun things and it's only been after few years as a developer, that I've become interested learning more about CS-theory. It's hard to be interested in such topics unless you have insight on why such things matter.
  - chongli 6y ago
    Yeah, so what we've found in the course is that the students hate doing it and tend to mess around a lot instead of following the rigorous procedure, at least with the early assignments. Later on in the course the problem sets get difficult and the students start to gain an appreciation for the process. It stops being this boring thing they're required to do and starts being a powerful tool for them to organize their thoughts instead of muddling around without making any progress.
mola 6y ago
I don't understand this trivializing of her work. Her project is innovative in teaching programming and is a product of research and she coined its name. Same goes for TDD, it's an innovation in the approach to coding, and someone gave that a name. We had tests before and we valued tests but that's not the point. I have my own reservations about her method, but that does not mean her work is trivial.
- jagged-chisel 6y ago
  I have not trivialized the work. I have disagreed with the naming. This is not a software development methodology, it’s a learning methodology.
  - cxr 6y ago
    Where in "X-first programming" does that constraint come from? What seems to have happened here is that you read "purpose-first programming", inferred that it's a methodology for developing software, and then started insisting that the responsibility for your taking that leap is someone else's fault, instead of yours. "Purpose-first programming" makes as much sense as "literate programming".

paledot 6y ago

Perhaps "purpose-first programming education" would be a better way to phrase it. Which, yes, is incredibly valuable. I recently adapted my learning process from tutorials to taking a problem I already know how to solve with a different language or tool and solving it with something new. It frees the mind space required to define a problem space, figure out process, etc., and allows me to focus on learning how to do that thing with this tool. Then if I'm attempting something I don't really understand, I'll use tools I understand well.

chongli 6y ago

The first year computer science course that I’m currently assisting at my university has followed a curriculum and philosophy based on the book HtDP by Felleisen et al [1]. The model we follow is called the “design recipe” which teaches students to write the documentation for a function as well as some basic examples and tests, all before writing a single line of code for the function itself. The very first of all these steps is to write the purpose statement which serves to document what a function does. As a teaching tool, it helps the students to organize their thoughts and plan their function before they start. This book is almost 20 years old. It derives from earlier works such as SICP. The concept of writing a purpose statement before you write any code is not a new idea at all. But it seems to be a very good idea. If you can’t write one sentence describing what problem your function solves then you’re probably not ready to start writing it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Design_Programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Design_Programs

ilmariku 6y ago
The approach you're explaining makes logical sense, but that's a really boring way to learn programming. It could work for CS-students, which are pre-selected in a way, but I still wouldn't teach students that methodically. There's just no fun there. For example, I'm an adult-ADHD developer in my 30's and really good at my work. I started programming, by just doing fun things and it's only been after few years as a developer, that I've become interested learning more about CS-theory. It's hard to be interested in such topics unless you have insight on why such things matter.
- chongli 6y ago
  Yeah, so what we've found in the course is that the students hate doing it and tend to mess around a lot instead of following the rigorous procedure, at least with the early assignments. Later on in the course the problem sets get difficult and the students start to gain an appreciation for the process. It stops being this boring thing they're required to do and starts being a powerful tool for them to organize their thoughts instead of muddling around without making any progress.

mola 6y ago

I don't understand this trivializing of her work. Her project is innovative in teaching programming and is a product of research and she coined its name. Same goes for TDD, it's an innovation in the approach to coding, and someone gave that a name. We had tests before and we valued tests but that's not the point. I have my own reservations about her method, but that does not mean her work is trivial.

jagged-chisel 6y ago
I have not trivialized the work. I have disagreed with the naming. This is not a software development methodology, it’s a learning methodology.
- cxr 6y ago
  Where in "X-first programming" does that constraint come from? What seems to have happened here is that you read "purpose-first programming", inferred that it's a methodology for developing software, and then started insisting that the responsibility for your taking that leap is someone else's fault, instead of yours. "Purpose-first programming" makes as much sense as "literate programming".