Slashdot Mirror
Learn How to Program Using Any Web Browser
The language is suitably light and simple, the book well-structured and broken down into easily digested chunks. The order in which concepts are introduced is fairly traditional for a language tutorial: first we get types, variables and statements, before moving on to conditionals, loops, and functions, followed by arrays and objects before finishing with event-driven programming. Davis' decision to leave string handling till last seems a little perverse and personally I would have introduced functions earlier.
My real complaints about this book centre on the abstract nature of the discussion. There are very few real world examples that could be useful to anyone. The best you get is a version of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" in Chapter 3, and an 'auction' application. The book would have been improved dramatically if the end result of your study was a few things you could actually point to.
I also have a complaint about the target audience for this book. The web page for the book at the publishers states that "The target reader is likely a twelve- or thirteen-year-old, who is just starting to get curious about what makes a computer work -- or an office worker who has been using computer applications for years, and would like to spend some time delving deeper into what makes them tick." Most adults and even teenagers don't want to 'learn how to program' as much as they want to learn how to use a tool to perform a task. If your tool is JavaScript, then it's almost certain your task is related to building web pages, but this gets little real attention from Davis. For even younger students, this book totally lacks anything to hold their attention -- the lack of real-world examples hurts here.
I also take issue with the title: this book doesn't really teach 'programming' much at all. It certainly teaches you to write JavaScript, but where are the sections about the real lessons of programming, such as top-down vs. bottom-up design, or breaking a task up into chunks? Even debugging has little coverage -- a single thirty-page chapter, half of which is specific to JavaScript or the throwing and handling of exceptions. Since the work of Papert and others at MIT twenty-five years ago, we've learned a great deal about how to teach programming concepts in a simple manner, but Davis appears to have ignored all this and given us a language tutorial. The publisher's web page for the book says "very emphatically, this is not a book about programming JavaScript." If that's so then I'd argue that it isn't a book about learning the principles of programming either.
It is obvious from this book that Davis is an excellent writer; if he had tried to write a book to teach JavaScript and had focused on the tasks for which it is often used this, volume may have been superb. As it is, he has shot for a higher goal and fallen far too short.
If you would like to check it out for yourself, you can go to the web page for the book where there is sample chapter, the Table of Contents (though they call it a "Detailed TOC" as distinct from the 'Table of Contents,' which is just a list of 11 chapter titles) and index, all in PDF format.
I went looking for a book that I could give to my 11-year-old daughter now that she has become interested in "what Daddy does." I'm still looking, I'm certain that this one isn't it.
You can purchase Learn How to Program Using Any Web Browser from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
The best way to learn how to program is to sit down in front of a computer with a reference handy and dive in!
geeky shirts.. funny shirts
The web browser is *not* an IDE. You do the programming in vim/gedit/notepad. (emacs is a bit much for javascript IMO)
I know this was meant as funny, but Java is a normal accepted language. Because it is more structured then Perl or other languages, I highly reccomend Java to beginners.
Javascript, or ECMA script, is a terrible non-standardized (despite being created by a standards board) peice of junk.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Java may be available on every platform, but most computers don't have a java compiler installed. A computer without a browser that can handle javascript is unthinkable, though.
If the book's actual target audience is 12ish, I don't really see JS keeping the attention of children.
I also don't think most 12-14 year olds really want an in-depth discussion of programming principals, like the review suggest. I think they'd rather it be fun. That could just be me...
Though it's not free and only works on a couple of platforms, I think Flash and ActionScript are a great way to introduce people, especially young people, to programming. A few simple lines of code can replace the timeline based motion tweening and is a great, visual way to see how your code works. From there kids can add a few lines of code to make sound and images work interactively.
True, it might not turn them into kernel hackers, but most kids would probably more interested in learning to program if it kept their attention. Action script can be very easy with many neat things taking only a few lines of codes but it can grow as your young programmer learns more and seeks more challenging projects.
- It has to be easy to learn and use. In order to build the novice's confidence, it should encourage early successes. It should be easy to debug.
- The tools have to be accessable to the student. Ideally, you want to use a language which is already installed on their computer, or at worse be a free download which will run on all major platforms.
- It has to be practical. If the student can't use it to do something which is useful TO THEM fairly early on in the learning process, they probably won't stick with it.
- It has to provide a good foundation for future learning. This means that it should support all the standard code constructs and have a syntax similar to other more advanced languages. It also means that it shouldn't teach them any bad habits they'll have to unlearn later.
I'm sure there are other qualities, but this is a pretty good starting list. On the basis of this simple list we can eliminate a lot of potential candidates as first language.Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The reviewer makes an excellent point. Programming is a *means to an end*. People don't learn how to program just so they can say they program. To not put the art of learning programming into the context of real-world applications is counterproductive.
Then again, pardon me for being cynical, but this seems reflective of the new type of motivation we have these days behind people choosing vocations. People go to law school, not because they have any interest in law, but because they're under the impression they can make money if they're a lawyer. The bottom line is that if you get into any vocation without having any passion or interest, you'll never be any good at it.
This reminds me of the arguments over which programming language is best. It's moot. The application and environment should dictate which tools be used. Likewise, if you want to learn to program, and don't know for what platform or application you're interested, you're on the wrong track... figure that out before you buy any books.
Yes, that's just what we need - every Joe, Shmoe, and Harry that surfs the web to start thinking he's hot shit on Sunday because he's a "programmer", and now he can go out and grab one of those elite tech jobs!
Of course, knowing the stupidity of HR, they'll likely get hired.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
But Python is free and available on nearly all OSs. And a decent language. And it comes with a development environment (not a great one, but it works!). And it has a sensible structure (similar to many other languages). And it comes with complete documentation. And....
... well, it's available everywhere, and you can find help. But you need to deal with pointers and casts, and the warnings when you mishandle them are obscure. And then there's the gruesome things that you can get used to doing with the preprocessor...that make your code unreadable.
Now many of the same things could be said for Java, but I think that Python makes a better first language. In fact, the only competition that I see is Ruby and Lisp. But if you speak English, you'll probably find more help for Python. (And Ruby diagnostics need work!)
Java is a popular first language in an academic setting, and in that setting it makes sense. But for learning on your own I feel that Python is a better choice.
C
C++....that's an unmentionable monstrosity. Sorry, but I'd sooner start a beginner with Ada. OTOH, most of the advantages of C++ can be captured in a more reasonable way with D (from Digital Mars). It's also available for free, but it's not available at all for the Mac. Even so, I thing even D is too complex for a first language (besides, it's still beta, or possibly alpha [it's gotten up to around version 0.8 over the last couple of years]).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Here is a course I helped design to teach Javascript programming to CS170 students-- pre-business majors.
Javascript was our idea of a language replacement for what we were using True Basic. The idea was to have a language where the students wouldn't constantly question why they were learning it, and to pretend like we were doing some level of web enabled e-commerce site programming.
The problems we have found come from the lack of structure of the language, and combined with the browser's desire to fix as much as it can. While this is a nice feature for a real developer, it sucks when you have to tell a student "I know it works on the browser, but it's still wrong."
The other issue is trying to keep to a small set of structures for programming, and making sure the TAs for the course don't get too ambitious with teaching dozens of alternative ways to accomplish the same thing. For students at this level, they just get confused.
But it does work well, and it is nice not having to ask students to buy another piece of software to program with at home. (Unlike True Basic.)
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
er... ansi c is available for all platforms too.
i think h.d.'s angle was write an intro to programming book that uses an interpreter that comes default with every os install... hence the javascript.
of course it's an incredibly lame angle since it breaks frymaster 14th rule of programming:
"if you can't install the interpreter/compiler you probably can't code in the language"
2 1337 4 u!
I began teaching my brother programming with Javascript. I also recommended to my department head that they use Java as a beginning programming introduction.
You need to learn the fundamentals of programming - not necessarily Assembly-level, but something that, upon completion of a beginning course, will be useful and applicable to other languages.
We spent three weeks learning conditionals, loops and case - in my Java course (specifically did not use the word "class" there, for anti-pun reasons...). The prerequisite courses were "intro programming" and another, such as VB. But all but three of students came into the class unable to understand an if-else. My time was wasted, my prof was furious and most students gave up.
You know what they learn in the intro programming class? QBASIC. You know how many people had a clue coming into Java or VB or C++? Two of us. We'd both been programming for ten years (and we were 20) and could teach the class. It was a req. for the major, so we had to take it.
Programming is best learned in front of a computer, with a task to do and a good reference to rely on. If that reference is a book, another programmer or freakin' Google, you can still learn the basics from there. I liked the idea of teaching my brother using Javascript because I could 1 - look at his code, 2 - point him at countless resources, examples, etc. and 3 - demonstrate that even if your code follows the rules, works on your machine and is well commented/indented, it won't work on everyone else's machine.
It won't teach you the inner workings of a machine (previous Slashdot post on Assembly as an intro language) but it will help prepare you for a real internship or at least for a class that will teach you more.
1) You have three options as you said but there are others as well. document.title = 'str' or window.status = 'str'. I think it is a wonderful way to start. First time I saw printf() I was really lost.
:
// your document title will change to "Beer"
:
// You could then check to see if an array contains something with a simple method :
// shorthand array definition
// of course this one is alerted.
2) the prototype is only there if you want to add a function after you instantiated an object. There are much better ways to add a method to an object since javascript 1.0.
If you were to build a function with a method you can do it very easily without using the prototype construct (ie inside the class definition)
function MyClass(str)
{
this.name = str || null;
this.changeDocTitle = function()
{
document.title = this.name;
}
}
var myObj = new MyClass('Beer');
myObj.changeDocTitle()
Now the Array object is a great example of when you should use the prototype construct. Say you wanted to add a method to all array objects to check if it contains an item. Here is how you would do it
Array.prototype.contains = function (obj)
{
for (var i = 0; i < this.length; i++)
{
if (this[i] == obj) return true;
}
return false;
}
var myArray = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
if (myArray.contains(3))
{
alert("My array contains 3")
}
else
{
alert("My array doesn't contain 3")
}
The prototype construct is actually really handy here for objects which have already been defined. Using it in any other circumstances is still possible but it isn't a good way to program IMHO.
3) nope JS wasn't designed for that but for people to learn for, switch, do and while loops it is very handy. You cannot expect someone just wanting to learn a bit about programming to directly dive into a Java/Swing/SQL environment, there needs to be stepping stones to get there. ECMAScript (Javascript) does that quite well.
How does the desire or willingness to learn assembly translate into entitlement to program?
- People who teach kids to program
- Programmers who write insecure software that's prone to viral infection
- Megacorporations that sell software that is inherently insecure because of intentional design choices
- Parents who don't teach their children to respect the rights of other people
Blaming viruses on people who teach programming is like blaming grafitti on people who teach art.Blaming viruses on the people who write the tools is like blaming grafitti on the people who make spray paint.
Blaming viruses on the people who make & sell insecure software is like blaming grafitti on the people who make & sell buildings that aren't grafitti-proof.
Learning how to program and releasing a virus are very different things, just as learning marksmanship and shooting people at random are very different things. Put the blame where it belongs: on people and not the technology.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?