On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 18:05 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote: > Robert Cummings wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 16:27 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote: > >> Marc Christopher Hall wrote: > >>> The following comment is not intended to be helpful.... > >>> > >>> *smacks head on desk repeatedly...* > >>> > >>> > >>> This comment is.. > >>> > >>> I would hazard to say that if you are unwilling or unable to grasp OOP, MVCs > >>> and any decent framework that is necessary then maybe stepping back and > >>> tackling only things you can grasp. > >> To be honest - one of the problems is that documentation that tries to > >> explain these concepts is often severely lacking, using extremely poor > >> analogies, and only make sense to people who already have an > >> understanding of the concept. > >> > >> For example - > >> > >> A car is a good real-world example of MVC. With a car you have two > >> views: the interior and the exterior. Both take input from the > >> controller: the driver. The brakes, steering wheel and other controls > >> represent the model: they take input from the controller (driver) and > >> hand them off to the views (interior/exterior) for presentation. > >> > >> That's from a web page that is suppose to explain MVC. > >> > >> I bet if you took 50 people who didn't have a clue as to what MVC is - > >> maybe 1 or 2 of them would after reading that. > >> > >> Documentation and howto's, just like code, really need to go through > >> real world testing to see if they make sense to people not already > >> familiar with the topic. > >> > >> Unfortunately that rarely happens. > > > > I think you have it back asswards. People need to go through real world > > development or innane examples and then someone needs ot tell them where > > they went wrong. That's how it worked in university. We got an example > > like the one above, then we were expected to apply the principle. Those > > who undertood it right away got great marks on their assignment, those > > who took a little longer didn't... but if they kept at it... till they > > figured it out... they got a good mark on the exam. I don't understand > > defeatism. Suck it up! There's a zillion examples on the web. Study > > many, learn the generalism. > > The problem is I can make a car analogy out of any type of programming > design method. And some people can make a programming design method out of a car analogy. Your point? Analogies are learning aids, not magic. > Most of those who got it right away and got great marks did so NOT > because of what they learned from the example, but because of what they > already knew before they signed up for the class. You can't generalize that statement though. Many students don't know it before they enter the class. And for those that did... they probably learnt it from a trivial unrealistic example also. > Thus, when the teacher sees some of his students understanding the > concept, he becomes smug and arrogant and thinks he did something right > and those who didn't get it have something wrong with them. The reality > is he can't teach worth shit and those who understood it did so before > they took his class, hence he didn't teach them anything. Once again, you can't generalize that statement. A bad experience with one teacher can hardly convey a trait to all teachers. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
