Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!mips!apple!motcsd!lance
From: lance@motcsd.csd.mot.com (lance.norskog)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Reflections
Message-ID: <3926@motcsd.csd.mot.com>
Date: 14 May 91 01:32:31 GMT
References: <1991May10.201843.7186@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>
Organization: Motorola CSD, Cupertino CA
Lines: 25

Well, this brings up my own observation about OO programming, and
Smalltalk in particular.

I've found that women seem prefer the Smalltalk paradigm over the
procedural paradigm, when faced with learning programming.  They've
generally been exposed to the procedural style first, and didn't enjoy
working with it.  Once they got into Smalltalk, they enjoyed programming
for the first time.

My theory is that while men are generally fascinated by machinery
and the fiddling thereof, women are generally fascinated by personal
interaction and find machinery boring.  The procedural paradigm
is mechanist in the extreme, whereas a Smalltalk program run
can be viewed as a conversation between fully designed members of
a society.  When programming is viewed in psychological terms,
women generally become much more interested.  

Viewed in this light, Smalltalk can be viewed as a method of breaking
a machine up from one giant machine to many little machines.  Other
software paradigms such as genetic algorithms and neural networks
are farther out along this path: the individual elements are 
less pre-defined, and have more able to change themselves
to fit their environment. (Note the words "fully designed" above.)

Lance Norskog