3 ms·
>Stick to things like apple, orange, pear While I am no pedagogical psychologist, I have witnessed mutiple times, how poor unrealistic examples give people a b
by stonemetal12 4y ago
>Stick to things like apple, orange, pear
While I am no pedagogical psychologist, I have witnessed mutiple times, how poor unrealistic examples give people a bad understanding of the thing they are trying to learn. Going with Apple, Orange, Pear would give people an idea of what the keywords did, but no understanding of when it was a good idea to apply the technique.
I think that is one of the primary reasons OO sucks so badly today. Everyone was trained on Fruit, Shapes, and Cars so they know the keywords, but don't have the foggiest clue of when it is a good idea to use them.
Not that I am suggesting LendingIterator! is a super wonderful example either. A good motivating example like 95% of the difficulty, and reward of programming tutorials.
- lucasyvas 4y agoThe solution to this is to have two examples: Beginner and Practical/Advanced
- andrepd 4y agoI think the point is that even for beginners these examples are dumb. If you want to explain OOP and inheritance you can use simple but realistic examples, like `class Shape { fn draw() }`, `class Rectangle extends Shape`, `class Circle extends Shape`, rather than `class Dog extends Animal` or some dumb stuff like that.
- lucasyvas 4y agoBingo
- insanitybit 4y agoAt only twice the cost! A bargain.
- cercatrova 4y agoMaybe we should be able to parametrize over difficulty :P
- Rusky 4y agoThe post you're complaining about starts with "because everyone likes to use that LendingIterator example I would offer a bit non-trivial example." It sounds like they are already doing that.