|
ABSTRACT
Part of the promise of object-oriented software technology - and much of the fascination with objected-orientedness -- stems from its psychological implications. Thinking in terms of objects sending and responding to messages is supposed to be more "natural" than thinking of various data structures being operated on by generic procedures. Programming by using or specializing existent objects and their methods is supposed to make code reuse accessible even to beginners.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J. and Austin, G. A. (1956). <i>A study of thinking</i>. New York: Wiley.
|
| |
2
|
|
| |
3
|
O'Shea, T. (1986). Panel: The learnability of object-oriented programming systems. In N. Meyrowitz (Ed.), <i>Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA'86) Conference Proceedings</i> (502--504). New York: ACM.
|
CITED BY 8
|
|
John M. Carroll , Janice A. Singer , Rachel K. E. Bellamy , Sherman R. Alpert, A view matcher for learning Smalltalk, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people, p.431-437, April 01-05, 1990, Seattle, Washington, United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Beth Rosson , John M. Carrol , Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Smalltalk scaffolding: a case study of minimalist instruction, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people, p.423-430, April 01-05, 1990, Seattle, Washington, United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|