 Learning? Not like that. (1)
Have you ever had difficulty learning something new and blamed yourself for your lack of success? Did you never thought it might be due to the convoluted way someone tried to explain it to you?
We're all slow-witted from time to time. But there's something wrong with many of the methods used to explain things to us. We should have deserved something special for what we had chosen to learn, namely object-
oriented programming, in line with the topic of software.
We would have been interested in this because our programs are slowly outgrowing our capabilities, and they promise us better clarity and structure with this topic. We would have been interested in this because our
programs are slowly outgrowing our capabilities, and they promise us better clarity and structure with this topic.
However, anyone hoping for guidance on this topic will be disappointed here. This may, of course, be because, as already suggested above, we're simply too stupid to understand such a seemingly complicated subject,
even though all the explainers claim it's not difficult.
Sometimes, however, they do the opposite, emphasizing the difficulties they themselves have had with this issue. This is understandable, of course, when you call a locksmith to open your front door, but . . .
He'll look at the lock and warn you that it could be expensive. Of course, he's preparing you for a hefty bill. But in our opinion, remarking on how difficult a topic is to understand has no place at the beginning of an
explanation.
But feel free to watch the videos on object orientation online, not to learn it yourself, but to recognize the consistently fatal approach to this topic. We even watched the 110-minute version.
No, 'much' doesn't always equal 'better,' on the contrary. You're inundated with even more foreign words. The five-minute videos at least make do with 'objects' and 'classes.' Is it really productive to add more terms at the
beginning of an explanation?
One even asks that these terms be memorized from now on. No, you remember something after you understand it, because then you realize why. It could also be that object orientation doesn't offer much more value for our
humble way of programming.
Apparently, programmers can't imagine this at all. And this brings us to the second cardinal error in explanations: they (almost) always start from themselves. They explain from their current perspective on the topic, virtually
after they've understood it.
Do they really have understand this, or are they just applying it? Unfortunately, with our limited knowledge, we can't verify this. The difference between understanding and applying is that the new method is used almost
without hesitation.
From now on, it must always be done this way, whether it makes sense or not. We have the feeling that many new methods have been born this way and have become enormously popular. We even have a special theory
about it in the field of software development.
As I said, we cannot prove this (yet), but the nonsense of immediately transforming every procedure into a structure and making it visible with the correspondingly labeled rectangles and arrows seems to be widespread in
this field.
| Try something a little easier! |
kfz-tech.de/YC24
| Did you understand everything? |
| 
