Misunderstanding Squeak

So, as a beginner, I have noted the many things people have told me about Squeak, but one thing is really bugging me, and I can't break free of it. In my experience programming is a linear task, not object-based, so how do I program using Squeak which uses "active objects"?  I don't understand.

So, as a beginner, I have noted the many things people have told me about Squeak, but one thing is really bugging me, and I can't break free of it. In my experience programming is a linear task, not object-based, so how do I program using Squeak which uses "active objects"?  I don't understand.

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Nathan Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, as a beginner, I have noted the many things people have told me about Squeak, but one thing is really bugging me, and I can't break free of it. In my experience programming is a linear task, not object-based, so how do I program using Squeak which uses "active objects"?  I don't understand.

I've seen this happen a lot when I see new programmers. They'll write single method programs that simply make library calls or implement (inline) all the functionality they need. My brother took a "learn to program" course in college (in C yuk!) and all his programming assignments looked like this. I *tried* to teach him to look for patterns and to remove dupplication but he never got the hang of it. Writing functions that could be reused was a difficult thing for him to comprehend.

 

I find that a lot of new programmers learn to program in a procedural style and then continue to apply that style with other languages they use even if they should use a different style. I think that working through an example to show how to think about objects would be very helpful for beginners. I would recommend David West's book, Object Thinking, but a lot of people didn't like the book. I really enjoyed the book but perhaps there are better ways to teach how to think about objects...

 

--

Edwin

_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

You guys are hitting most of my problems. Here's the way I design a new project. First, naturally I find a problem, brainstorm the general solution to the problem, then I work on two separate pieces, the underlying functionality and the user interface, be it text-based or graphical or whatever. After that I will likely compile my first partial version, and test it to see if what I get is what I expected. If not, I'll review the compile/runtime error messages (stack traces) and attempt to remedy the problem. The are other instances in which I have taken on test-based programming, which involves designing the solution, writing unit tests, then writing the code for the unit tests, refactoring, writing more tests, and repeating the process until the solution is complete. I don't understand how these sorts of processes are accomplished in the object-based system called squeak. I understand that there is still source code...to some extent, or maybe always. And I understand the SmallTalk (Squeak) is a managed environment, i.e. it has a runtime environment that handles types, garbage collection, etc.

I've started reading that PDF book, and I can't say that I've learned much yet. I'm also not looking for a short cut or anything. It is simply that up until I encountered Squeak (the past 18 years) I have never dealt with a visual environment that deals with development in the way that Squeak seems to. The only thing that I have ever seen that even compares (in my mind) to Squeak is Sun's Lively Kernel, an even newer innovation than Squeak. So my background is in C/C++, Java, Ruby, C#.Net, Visual Basic (6/.Net), Python, Perl, (X)HTML/CSS/Javascript/XML, PHP, and ASP.Net. How do I take what I know of those programming languages, Agile development process and such, and go forward in learning how to use Squeak?

I've heard several people state that they'll "never go back to" those languages. But I'm very certain that like each of those languages, Squeak has it's place in the circle of code, and is useful for some tasks, while other languages are useful for other tasks. So where do I start then?  Do I keep going in that free PDF book, Squeak By Example?

Does anybody see my difficulty the way I do?

Nathan

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Edwin Castro <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Nathan Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, as a beginner, I have noted the many things people have told me about Squeak, but one thing is really bugging me, and I can't break free of it. In my experience programming is a linear task, not object-based, so how do I program using Squeak which uses "active objects"?  I don't understand.

I've seen this happen a lot when I see new programmers. They'll write single method programs that simply make library calls or implement (inline) all the functionality they need. My brother took a "learn to program" course in college (in C yuk!) and all his programming assignments looked like this. I *tried* to teach him to look for patterns and to remove dupplication but he never got the hang of it. Writing functions that could be reused was a difficult thing for him to comprehend.

 

I find that a lot of new programmers learn to program in a procedural style and then continue to apply that style with other languages they use even if they should use a different style. I think that working through an example to show how to think about objects would be very helpful for beginners. I would recommend David West's book, Object Thinking, but a lot of people didn't like the book. I really enjoyed the book but perhaps there are better ways to teach how to think about objects...

 

--

Edwin

_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

--
Nathan Lane
Home, http://www.nathandelane.com
Mirror, http://nathandelane.awardspace.com

Nathan Lane schrieb:

> I just realized that I need to clarify something else, I don't have
> difficulty "thinking in objects", I can do that just fine, as Java and
> C# have both taught me this extensively. I just don't understand how to
> use Squeak objects to develop a useful program.
>

There are subtle differences between C++, C# and Java objects and
Smalltalk objects. Take a copy of Kent Beck's "Smalltalk - Best Practice
 Patterns" in order to make familiar with good Smalltalk style. This
will give you some hints.

Smalltalk is a dynamically typed language that makes it different from
the C family of languages you already know. And it has an image with
"living" objects which makes it different to other dynamic languages
like Ruby.
This, together with its orthogonality and its tools, make Smalltalk a
totally new and advanced system. Alas it takes some time to find this
out and many don't realise it all.
For me it took some time to accept that such an "old" language is far
superior to all "new" languages.

Andreas

_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 03:00:25PM -0600, Nathan Lane wrote:
>
> Can anybody answer me this? This Squeak run on top of a SmallTalk runtime
> environment? Or is is the SmallTalk runtime environment?

Yes, and yes.

The classic "Back to the Future" paper will give some perspective:
 http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/squeak/oopsla_squeak.html

Dave

_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners