Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!mk2!
From: dpeachey@vmark.co.uk (Dan)
Subject: Re: Assessing Someone's Ability To Learn Smalltalk
Organization: VMark Software Ltd.
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 11:12:56 GMT
Message-ID: <1996Apr4.111256.26600@vmark.co.uk>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
References: <4junrn$ln@hacgate2.hac.com> <4k04dl$uhs@grimsel.zurich.ibm.com>
Sender: @vmark.co.uk
Lines: 39

Paul_Gover@uk.ibm.com wrote:

>In <4junrn$ln@hacgate2.hac.com>, Gary Stetler <gstetler@hacemx.hac.com> writes:
>> ...
>>Are there ways, with some certainty, to assess a person's chances with Smalltalk before we 
>>spend time and $$$ on training?

>I suspect this might start a futile discussion, but for what it's worth, I'd look for
>someone with a qualification in mathematics.  That's not because Smalltalk is a
>mathematical language, but because Smalltalk programming is about writing 
>abstractions from the concrete, and that's a mathematical skill.  No certainty though!

>Paul Gover, IBM Warwick Development Group.
>X.400: G=paul; S=gover; P=ibmmail; A=ibmx400; C=gb
>I speak for myself, not IBM, of course.

I would agree with Paul completely on this point.
I've found OO/Smalltalk easy to pick up,  but my weakness is
technical knowledge,  where as for my colleagues and the customers
I support it is the other way round.
Then I realised their background is completely IT,  while mine has a
strong theoretical physics and maths base.
OO is all about abstraction,  and this a maths thing not a computing
one.
Bear this in mind,  or you'll end up with people writing COBOL in
SMALLTALK,  and I've seen this happen  too many times.

Saying that,  this is only my opinion.

Hope this helps you.

Cheers

Dan.

ObjectStudio Support.

My opinions are my own and not those of VMark.

