|
I prefer the learn-by-doing approach.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
With due consideration, one realizes it's really the only way to learn as, until you actually do something with what you've learned you never know if you've actually learned it.
And like all things, theory is one thing - practice (like confronting asinine users) is quite another.
I believe we call this, as it progresses, "experience".
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I stay away from theoretical stuff because I'm too busy trying to make code work in a real-world app.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Sure but you still need a reference of some kind, I think they are looking for what type of reference you prefer.
All types of reference require you to do the examples. Just reading a reference in totality is boring a batshit.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: I think they are looking for what type of reference you prefer.
I didn't get that from the question.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
In every _written_ form, I can do a search. In videos I can just watch, often unprofessional, unclear voices, some weird and wild clicking around when someone wants to "show" you things in an 8 minute video, which can be done in 3 lines of text.
I am not part of the video generation and I will never like videos.
Plain simple text with some screenshots and good structured class/hierarchy documentation is all that is required.
|
|
|
|
|
*shakes fist at sky*
I tend to agree. Videos are generally awful.
|
|
|
|
|
The only videos I've found that I can easily learn from are Jason Turner's 'C++ Weekly' screencasts - each video covers one, really very small part of C++, with a focus on code & explanation of the point he's trying to make.
At the same time, I wonder if text would still be better (and also I wonder if I get on with his videos because I also listen to the podcast he co-hosts, so am used to his voice!)
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
I concur, but I think it depends on the subject matter. Watching someone click around and IDE is fairly unhelpful, requiring pausing and rewinding and too much life expenditure. But if my 'learning' involves how to remove the pump from my washing machine, YouTube is absolutely awesome.
They're probably not talking about that though.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
TBH I'm starting to like videos for some stuff, like cleaning, disassembling and customizing guns. Seeing it done (with a good vocal explanation) rather than reading it descripted in some broken engrish really helps a lot.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
...because if you don't understand, you can easily ask a human who - in theory at least - does.
A book is a good substitute because it presents all the info in a structured manner.
Basically, the "efficiency order":
Formal courses
Reading a book
Written tutorials
Using the docs and trial-and-error
Online interactive tutorials
Video tutorials - mostly because they are generally created by people who have no idea how to teach or how to make a video, and who know little more than the person watching (if that)...
By modifying and extending an existing application
Randomly copying and pasting online code examples However, this is to produce a developer who knows what he is doing. To get one that can bluff his way through an interview then crash and burn in the actual job, reverse it.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm totally with you on everything you wrote. I'd only wxchange the order of "written tutorials" and "using the docs", with the caveat that it applies ony if the docs are well written (i.e. Win32 API).
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Griff,
I am stunned everytime I see your signature.
I learned programming on an Amstrad CPC 464 in 1984/85. It is sooo many years, since I laid my hands on Amstrad.
This word is so nostalgic to me.
Thanks for your signature 
|
|
|
|
|
 Agree
Pity is... most of the time, due to the lack of time. Many people end reading a lot staff in internet trying to distinguish good from crap, solve the current issue and change to the next item in the ToDo
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
As somebody who teaches formal courses at a local college, there's nothing I love more than engaged students who ask questions. I have a 300-level course right now where I have the students take turns "driving" at the podium, and the class works through solving problems as a group. With this group of students (my first in 5 years), I get to serve more as a facilitator than an instructor, filling in the knowledge gaps where appropriate. I still create the problems for the students to solve (unless they come up with their own, which is also exciting), and their engagement forces me to be sharp (haha) with the language (C#) and coding principles in general.
TL;DR - Thanks for discussing the importance of formal courses.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I can agree with you on this to a point. However if I am looking at picking up a new language/technology that I need right now for a client, taking a formal course that will require months of time is not usually the most effective (especially if the client needs results now).
I think that anyone that has been working successfully in our field (at least 10+ years) learns the knack of picking up enough of a new technology quickly to get the job done, at least at first. After that if we keep using that technology we just reinforce and add to our use and understanding of that tech.
Of course this has shortcomings - we may get a stilted view of a new technology, not realizing some of the more elegant solutions it provides. I think then that if this is something we want more of a deep dive into, we take those courses and read the books (among other ways) to get a wider breadth of understanding in such new tech.
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Mertens wrote: we may get a stilted view of a new technology, not realizing some of the more elegant solutions it provides
And that's the problem with internet based "tutorials" - most of them are created by people who also don't realize what is available!
A good course on a new language doesn't have to take months: heck, an experienced developer could pick up the whole of C# the language in a day or less, but the whole .NET framework it depends on is a lot more to learn. A "basics" course - enough to get you up and running with C#, collections, Linq, events, delegates, databases, threading, and WinForms for example - could be under a week.
And the big problem is that if you "pick it up" enough to get the job done, you won't be given time to learn it properly - because you clearly don't need it as your code works ... 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: A "basics" course - enough to get you up and running with C#, collections, Linq, events, delegates, databases, threading, and WinForms for example - could be under a week
I totally agree. But when it comes to newer tech (or tech that is in a narrower field), finding some decent learning material amongst the dross that usually pops up is a challenge. And that client is waiting...
Having worked in this field for some time now (40+ years), one thing that I have noticed is that a lot of languages and frameworks that have come out are built on concepts that already existed. For example I was involved in working on one of the Netscape browsers and learned the XUL UI framework that they use. When I started learning WPF, and later Flex (Flash) programming, I found that a lot of the same concepts were incorporated and making it much easier to learn these languages.
One thing too - so many new technologies come out, have their brief moments of "wow", then fade away again. One has to be picky about what technologies you want to put the extra time into.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
