Thoughts on teaching OO concepts to COBOL programmers
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Opcodes of RM-COBOL 85
Next: Re Thoughts on teaching OO concepts to COBOL programmers (by razor iruddock@blueyonder.co.uk)
From: Pete Dashwood on 12 Apr 2008 03:42 "Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger(a)knology.net> wrote in message news:zberger-C6D5FC.01023211042008(a)ispnews.usenetserver.com... > I've recently found myself tasked with teaching a few dozen IBM > mainframe COBOL programmers the concepts of object oriented programming. > No specific language syntax, just the concepts. These lucky few dinos > will find themselves mixing their COBOL back-ends with standard Java > apps, J2EE apps, C# apps, or Ruby apps. To have a company actually offer to teach them this is a fortunate opportunity. Full credit to the organisation concerned. > > My specific goal is not to teach any language specific thing (though I > might use Java for the examples and kill the J2SE, J2EE and C# syntax > with a single invocation of the stone.throw() method). My purpose is to > teach the simple "what is an object", "what is inheritance", "what is an > interface", "what is encapsulation", et al, so that they have the proper > frame of mind to accept the language specific training that will be > offered. > > I was hoping that some of you that have COBOL experience AND Object > Oriented experience might share your thoughts on what was helpful in the > learning process. Having done precisely this exercise in a couple of places, but with smaller groups than yours, I can tell you that it CAN be hard work. Some people can suspend belief and look at something anew, others can't. There is a natural tendency to simply decide that a new concept, sharing certain points with a familiar one, IS the familiar one being re-invented. (I call this "ITSA"). Once they decide ITSA they will never realise that, in fact, it has very important differences from the familiar concept. (I call this "ITSLIKE"). It is important to let them know right at the start some ground rules: 1. What you are going to learn is not in competition with what you already know, any more than an apple is superior to a fish. 2. Some of what you will encounter will strike chords with you and will appear similar to things you already know. Please try not to conclude it is a re-invention of what you know already. There are very important,but subtle differences that only become apparent as you come to grips with the subject for real. 3. Any new field has new jargon. Object based development is no exception. Don't be intimidated by new terms, we'll cover and explain each one as we come to it. 4. If you could possibly "forget" what you already know about programming, or put it on hold for the duration of this course, you will make much better progress than if you keep trying to relate what you are learning to what you know already. An apple is not a fish, but both can provide sustenance. > Of course, that includes what was not helpful as > well. We often learn more from our mistakes than our successes. Introduce OO concepts to COBOL programmers by means of OO COBOL. Big mistake. It is too complex and unfamiliar to be a primer. Introduce OO concepts by means of an OO language. (I used Java for myself, but C# would have been better; it is simpler and more subtle, yet retains the essentials of Java. When I taught myself this stuff it simply wasn't available.) > > For example: I've ruled out the traditional "shape" example to explain > polymorphism -- you know, the one where you have a "shape" base class > with a virtual "draw()" method -- and a "square", "triangle" and > "circle" subclass. I ruled it out because some practicing COBOL > programmers (for decades even) have never put a graphic onto a screen, > only text. You are SO right to do this, Joe. They have enough to get their heads around without giving them contrived examples that are outside their experience. > > (So my simple example went from "shapes" to the "animal" class with the > speak() method -- you know the dog subclass says "bark" and the pig > subclass says "oink" and the sheep subclass says "baa means no".) Yes, that is much better. > > But I would really appreciate hearing about your experiences going from > COBOL to any OO style of programming. What were your pitfalls, what was > helpful, etc. > > One thing I would really love is if you have good textbook > recommendations. If "The Idiots Guide to OO for Cobol Dummies" was the > best thing since sliced bread, please let me know, I might go buy a few > cases and make the author a slightly happier person. I used "Teach yourself Java 2 in 24 hours" by Rogers Cadenhead. (ISBN 0-672-31630-7) This is the best textbook for self teaching I have ever encountered. The concepts (including OO) are taught beautifully with wit and humour. After completing this, I went back to OO COBOL and it all fell into place effortlessly. (I had spent over 6 weeeks getting nowhere with it before that...) At around that time Wilson Price very generously sent me a copy of his book: Elements of Object Oriented COBOL (ISBN 0-9655945-7-2) which is also excellent. I could unhesitatingly recommend either or both of these books for such a course. In fact, you could build a course of 24 classes using Cadenhead's book alone, then use Wil's book for additional examples, exercises, and relating the concepts to what happens in COBOL Land. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Charles Hottel on 12 Apr 2008 11:53 "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:a5VLj.174423$uN4.76665(a)fe07.news.easynews.com... > Joe, > although it is medium old, I would suggest looking at/for: > > "Object Orientation for Cobol Programming" > > by Ray Obin. See: > http://www.bookfinder4u.com/IsbnSearch.aspx?isbn=1569280053&mode=direct > > I couldn't find where to buy new copies, but you might want to check with > Micro Focus to see if they have "old" copies for sale. > > This book uses "traditional" COBOL thinking to explain OO concepts. > > > -- > Bill Klein > wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com This book is one of only two Cobol based books that I found helpful. However it was not enough for me. In particular I found the Factory concept not well explained. Also seeing how to do "OO concepts" using non-OO COBOL tends to reinforce the idea that OO is not really anything new or different and I do not think that is helpful. It doesn't give you the feel for a language that has OO constructs built in and it doesn't give you a feell for the patterns of use of those constructs. The other book was Wilson Price's "Elements of Object Oriented COBOL". While good on the whole I think students will come away thinking that OO is way too wordy and cumbersome. This is not really a fault of the book but has more to do with how OO is implemented in COBOL. However I personally understood both of these much better after learning Java. C# would also be good, but I would stay away from C++ in the beginning. I have had good experiences with books from Mike Murach. His books usually have a lot of examples showing typical business application examples: http://www.murach.com/books/java.htm http://www.murach.com/books/cs08/index.htm A lot of books introduce the concepts of inheritance, interfaces and composition so that you come away with some general understanding of them, but the examples are such that you really don't have a feel for what to use when and the various tradeoffs with each. The books "Head First Java" and "Head First Design Patterns" are very good (be sure to get the latest versions). The latter might be too advanced for beginners but you might be able to use some of the animal examples (or others) from it. It has some simple animal based examples based on flying and quacking ducks and how to make/adapt a turkey to look like a duck etc. I really enjoyed learning the examples in this book but get the errata and chapter 9 on iterator and composite patterns contains some buggy code. What I really liked was how they took an initial example and kept improving it using the OO design principles being introduced. Also it showed interfaces, inheritance and composition and when to prefer or choose on over the other. Mnay books say "favor composition over inheritance" but they don't give concrete examples that allow you to see why. This one does. I guess it sonewhat of a what comes first the chicke or the egg problem. You need some knowledge of OO concepts to understand OO design patterns but for me I needed OO design patterns to appreciate how the concepts are used and to see some of their power. Many people insist that it is better to learn OO design first and this might be a more language neutral approach. I don't know as I did not take that approach and I personally sometimes have trouble understanding exactly what is meant without seeing a concrete example.
From: Pete Dashwood on 12 Apr 2008 18:18 "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:htCdncue2-CYRp3VnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > > "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:a5VLj.174423$uN4.76665(a)fe07.news.easynews.com... >> Joe, >> although it is medium old, I would suggest looking at/for: >> >> "Object Orientation for Cobol Programming" >> >> by Ray Obin. See: >> http://www.bookfinder4u.com/IsbnSearch.aspx?isbn=1569280053&mode=direct >> >> I couldn't find where to buy new copies, but you might want to check with >> Micro Focus to see if they have "old" copies for sale. >> >> This book uses "traditional" COBOL thinking to explain OO concepts. >> >> >> -- >> Bill Klein >> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com > > This book is one of only two Cobol based books that I found helpful. > However it was not enough for me. In particular I found the Factory > concept not well explained. Also seeing how to do "OO concepts" using > non-OO COBOL tends to reinforce the idea that OO is not really anything > new or different and I do not think that is helpful. It doesn't give you > the feel for a language that has OO constructs built in and it doesn't > give you a feell for the patterns of use of those constructs. > > The other book was Wilson Price's "Elements of Object Oriented COBOL". > While good on the whole I think students will come away thinking that OO > is way too wordy and cumbersome. This is not really a fault of the book > but has more to do with how OO is implemented in COBOL. > > However I personally understood both of these much better after learning > Java. C# would also be good, but I would stay away from C++ in the > beginning. I have had good experiences with books from Mike Murach. His > books usually have a lot of examples showing typical business application > examples: > > http://www.murach.com/books/java.htm > > http://www.murach.com/books/cs08/index.htm > > A lot of books introduce the concepts of inheritance, interfaces and > composition so that you come away with some general understanding of them, > but the examples are such that you really don't have a feel for what to > use when and the various tradeoffs with each. > > The books "Head First Java" and "Head First Design Patterns" are very good > (be sure to get the latest versions). The latter might be too advanced > for beginners but you might be able to use some of the animal examples (or > others) from it. It has some simple animal based examples based on flying > and quacking ducks and how to make/adapt a turkey to look like a duck etc. > I really enjoyed learning the examples in this book but get the errata and > chapter 9 on iterator and composite patterns contains some buggy code. > What I really liked was how they took an initial example and kept > improving it using the OO design principles being introduced. Also it > showed interfaces, inheritance and composition and when to prefer or > choose on over the other. Mnay books say "favor composition over > inheritance" but they don't give concrete examples that allow you to see > why. This one does. I guess it sonewhat of a what comes first the chicke > or the egg problem. You need some knowledge of OO concepts to understand > OO design patterns but for me I needed OO design patterns to appreciate > how the concepts are used and to see some of their power. > > Many people insist that it is better to learn OO design first and this > might be a more language neutral approach. I don't know as I did not take > that approach and I personally sometimes have trouble understanding > exactly what is meant without seeing a concrete example. This is a very helpful review, Charlie. I'm going to try and get this book. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." >
From: Charles Hottel on 12 Apr 2008 23:16 "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:66cqpsF2kaig9U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:htCdncue2-CYRp3VnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >> >> "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message >> news:a5VLj.174423$uN4.76665(a)fe07.news.easynews.com... >>> Joe, >>> although it is medium old, I would suggest looking at/for: >>> >>> "Object Orientation for Cobol Programming" >>> >>> by Ray Obin. See: >>> http://www.bookfinder4u.com/IsbnSearch.aspx?isbn=1569280053&mode=direct >>> >>> I couldn't find where to buy new copies, but you might want to check >>> with Micro Focus to see if they have "old" copies for sale. >>> >>> This book uses "traditional" COBOL thinking to explain OO concepts. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bill Klein >>> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com >> >> This book is one of only two Cobol based books that I found helpful. >> However it was not enough for me. In particular I found the Factory >> concept not well explained. Also seeing how to do "OO concepts" using >> non-OO COBOL tends to reinforce the idea that OO is not really anything >> new or different and I do not think that is helpful. It doesn't give >> you the feel for a language that has OO constructs built in and it >> doesn't give you a feell for the patterns of use of those constructs. >> >> The other book was Wilson Price's "Elements of Object Oriented COBOL". >> While good on the whole I think students will come away thinking that OO >> is way too wordy and cumbersome. This is not really a fault of the book >> but has more to do with how OO is implemented in COBOL. >> >> However I personally understood both of these much better after learning >> Java. C# would also be good, but I would stay away from C++ in the >> beginning. I have had good experiences with books from Mike Murach. His >> books usually have a lot of examples showing typical business application >> examples: >> >> http://www.murach.com/books/java.htm >> >> http://www.murach.com/books/cs08/index.htm >> >> A lot of books introduce the concepts of inheritance, interfaces and >> composition so that you come away with some general understanding of >> them, but the examples are such that you really don't have a feel for >> what to use when and the various tradeoffs with each. >> >> The books "Head First Java" and "Head First Design Patterns" are very >> good (be sure to get the latest versions). The latter might be too >> advanced for beginners but you might be able to use some of the animal >> examples (or others) from it. It has some simple animal based examples >> based on flying and quacking ducks and how to make/adapt a turkey to look >> like a duck etc. I really enjoyed learning the examples in this book but >> get the errata and chapter 9 on iterator and composite patterns contains >> some buggy code. What I really liked was how they took an initial example >> and kept improving it using the OO design principles being introduced. >> Also it showed interfaces, inheritance and composition and when to prefer >> or choose on over the other. Mnay books say "favor composition over >> inheritance" but they don't give concrete examples that allow you to see >> why. This one does. I guess it sonewhat of a what comes first the >> chicke or the egg problem. You need some knowledge of OO concepts to >> understand OO design patterns but for me I needed OO design patterns to >> appreciate how the concepts are used and to see some of their power. >> >> Many people insist that it is better to learn OO design first and this >> might be a more language neutral approach. I don't know as I did not >> take that approach and I personally sometimes have trouble understanding >> exactly what is meant without seeing a concrete example. > > This is a very helpful review, Charlie. > > I'm going to try and get this book. > > Pete. > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." >> > > You can get the code examples in C# from this url: http://www.wickedlysmart.com/HeadFirst/HeadFirstDesignPatterns/HeadFirstPatternsIndex.html
From: Pete Dashwood on 13 Apr 2008 03:42
"Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:TO2dnSi1TqFg55zVnZ2dnUVZ_tmhnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message > news:66cqpsF2kaig9U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:htCdncue2-CYRp3VnZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >>> >>> "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message >>> news:a5VLj.174423$uN4.76665(a)fe07.news.easynews.com... >>>> Joe, >>>> although it is medium old, I would suggest looking at/for: >>>> >>>> "Object Orientation for Cobol Programming" >>>> >>>> by Ray Obin. See: >>>> >>>> http://www.bookfinder4u.com/IsbnSearch.aspx?isbn=1569280053&mode=direct >>>> >>>> I couldn't find where to buy new copies, but you might want to check >>>> with Micro Focus to see if they have "old" copies for sale. >>>> >>>> This book uses "traditional" COBOL thinking to explain OO concepts. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bill Klein >>>> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com >>> >>> This book is one of only two Cobol based books that I found helpful. >>> However it was not enough for me. In particular I found the Factory >>> concept not well explained. Also seeing how to do "OO concepts" using >>> non-OO COBOL tends to reinforce the idea that OO is not really anything >>> new or different and I do not think that is helpful. It doesn't give >>> you the feel for a language that has OO constructs built in and it >>> doesn't give you a feell for the patterns of use of those constructs. >>> >>> The other book was Wilson Price's "Elements of Object Oriented COBOL". >>> While good on the whole I think students will come away thinking that OO >>> is way too wordy and cumbersome. This is not really a fault of the book >>> but has more to do with how OO is implemented in COBOL. >>> >>> However I personally understood both of these much better after learning >>> Java. C# would also be good, but I would stay away from C++ in the >>> beginning. I have had good experiences with books from Mike Murach. >>> His books usually have a lot of examples showing typical business >>> application examples: >>> >>> http://www.murach.com/books/java.htm >>> >>> http://www.murach.com/books/cs08/index.htm >>> >>> A lot of books introduce the concepts of inheritance, interfaces and >>> composition so that you come away with some general understanding of >>> them, but the examples are such that you really don't have a feel for >>> what to use when and the various tradeoffs with each. >>> >>> The books "Head First Java" and "Head First Design Patterns" are very >>> good (be sure to get the latest versions). The latter might be too >>> advanced for beginners but you might be able to use some of the animal >>> examples (or others) from it. It has some simple animal based examples >>> based on flying and quacking ducks and how to make/adapt a turkey to >>> look like a duck etc. I really enjoyed learning the examples in this >>> book but get the errata and chapter 9 on iterator and composite patterns >>> contains some buggy code. What I really liked was how they took an >>> initial example and kept improving it using the OO design principles >>> being introduced. Also it showed interfaces, inheritance and composition >>> and when to prefer or choose on over the other. Mnay books say "favor >>> composition over inheritance" but they don't give concrete examples that >>> allow you to see why. This one does. I guess it sonewhat of a what >>> comes first the chicke or the egg problem. You need some knowledge of OO >>> concepts to understand OO design patterns but for me I needed OO design >>> patterns to appreciate how the concepts are used and to see some of >>> their power. >>> >>> Many people insist that it is better to learn OO design first and this >>> might be a more language neutral approach. I don't know as I did not >>> take that approach and I personally sometimes have trouble understanding >>> exactly what is meant without seeing a concrete example. >> >> This is a very helpful review, Charlie. >> >> I'm going to try and get this book. >> >> Pete. >> -- >> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." >>> >> >> > > You can get the code examples in C# from this url: > > http://www.wickedlysmart.com/HeadFirst/HeadFirstDesignPatterns/HeadFirstPatternsIndex.html > Many thanks. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |