Reaction for: Documenting Frameworks using patterns by Amanda

Now that I'm becoming more and more interested and informed about the computer world I find that I am becoming more intrigued with how programming languages are established and thought up. This language, which was originally designed to help non-architects become architects to design their own homes, is now an experiment in teaching programming. What is usually the case is that the programmer attempts to understand how the framework works first and then learns how to use it. The problem is that nobody understands frameworks until they use it. This language attempts to teach how to use the framework with out explaining how it works.

From what I understand I think that this would be similar to teaching design patterns without teaching syntax. Then, once you decide which design pattern would be best to use in this case you would take the manual and plug-in according to what you need the program to do. But they use HotDraw which is a graphical tool. It is similar to a blueprint or a schematic diagram. These graphical tools do help non-programmers design. It is almost like the previous article for this week. That proposed making programming more like English whereas this proposes and actually implements graphical components. But I'm not quite sure how the two sections of this article are related.

The first discusses the potential for a language or tool that teaches non-architects to design their own houses. This stemmed into a way of teaching tools that is non-traditional. It teaches the user how to use the frameworks before they understand how they work.

Then it describes HotDraw and the way that it is used. Well, acutally, in explaining how it works I'm beginning to understand how the two are related: HotDraw does this. It teaches the user the best way to program something conceptually before they actually do the hard code...or rather, in the place of hard code.

Yes, now I understand fully the intent of the two articles this week. It was to examine two different ideas to non-traditional programming. The focuses of these two languages was to make it easier to use. One took it from the language perspective while the other proposed mapping out the program.

Still, what I find curious is that both of the authors expect the users of these languages to be people that are familiar with many or several different languages. It would seem to me that they would want them to be used by new programmers considering that the intent is to make using and learning the language simpler. But the fault, as far as I am concerned is that they both use components to other languages. Hmmmmph.


Reactions


[BACK]