tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post3474765475791858848..comments2024-02-14T22:50:48.749+10:30Comments on Bill Kerr: OOPs?Bill Kerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-3449519364974212922007-08-27T23:31:00.000+09:302007-08-27T23:31:00.000+09:30Yes, Charles' link to prototype based programming ...Yes, Charles' link to prototype based programming is very good. It seems to be something like cloning and modifying existing objects rather than designing new classes from scratch.<BR/><BR/>Etoys has morphs and cloning, so I've been doing it already without knowing the name of it! - and I plan to look at morphic more (which was incorporated into etoys / squeak from Self by John Maloney)<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/792#Morphic" REL="nofollow">Some morphic tutorials </A><BR/><BR/>A <A HREF="http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/CollectiveNBlueBook/morphic.final.pdf" REL="nofollow"> paper about morphic in the squeak UI </A> by John Maloney<BR/><BR/>I think the object model in GameMaker is similar too, but I'm not sure. In GameMaker you can clone instances, do inheritance and over-riding but you can't design your own classes<BR/><BR/>So I guess both etoys and GameMaker have adapted themselves in their evolution along the lines being suggested by Mark Guzdial - object use but not class create.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-18823845970363539912007-08-23T22:01:00.000+09:302007-08-23T22:01:00.000+09:30I grew up learning procedural programming as a fun...I grew up learning procedural programming as a fun hobby (BASIC on a TRS-80). The last few years I've been trying to wrap my head around OOP (in Python mostly). I've heard that learning OOP may actually be easier if one has never studied programming before versus having an ingrained procedural programming background...as if procedural "dogma" taints cognition and is hard to break away from. I don't know if that is true...it may just be that I'm too daft to grasp the subtlety of OOP. :) Regardless, I've never taken a programming class and am all self-taught. That's probably the real reason why I'm a weak programmer. But, good enough as a teacher to get beginners' feet wet. I just keep trying to learn more and more every year.<BR/><BR/>To Charles: Thanks for that wikipedia link!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-72214308619392052102007-08-23T21:39:00.000+09:302007-08-23T21:39:00.000+09:30If classes are an obstacle to grasping OOP, using ...If classes are an obstacle to grasping OOP, using prototypes seems to be the way to go (cf. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia on prototype-based programming</A>). Is this what Guzdial is on about when he talks about deferring the object concept?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com