Why we still suck at teaching people how to code with ASP.NET

I use "suck" too much in blog titles.

I've mentioned here and there that an experience gap and general poor education leads to a developer community that just isn't what it could be. Maybe the thing that bothers me the most is that authors and People Who Know(TM) don't teach very well.

I tried to do what I could with my book, and I've had almost universally positive feedback. Hey, I'm not that far removed from the people I'm trying to teach, so I feel their pain. I've been trying to post more often in the www.asp.net forums as well, but that happens in brief spurts. I'm doing what I can, when I can.

I still find stuff from time to time that I have to learn myself, and I find it staggering that Web examples and books always suck at this. The approach is always either too complex or short but lacks explanation. That's seriously annoying. For example, I recently wanted to build some templated controls. One of the books I have (name withheld to protect the guilty) spends five pages of code then 40 pages of explanation to build something so insanely complex that it's nearly worthless as a teaching tool. A Web-based article on MSDN was better, but still introduced complexity irrelevant to explaining the process. Eventually I figured it out, but only because I have a good feel for how stuff is supposed to work in general. I'd hate to be someone with less experience.

So for those of you generating content intended to teach people, whether it's by book, magazine, Web or whatever, keep it simple, stupid! The first application of new knowledge is rarely an instance of having to design space craft or a new microprocessor.

2 Comments

  • "The approach is always either too complex or short but lacks explanation. That's seriously annoying. For example, I recently wanted to build some templated controls. One of the books I have (name withheld to protect the guilty) spends five pages of code then 40 pages of explanation to build something so insanely complex that it's nearly worthless as a teaching tool. A Web-based article on MSDN was better, but still introduced complexity irrelevant to explaining the process"



    hmmmm, is that the fault of the teachers or the framework?



    Think back to teaching people how to code in VB 5 or 6. Except for a few special cases (dim as vs. dim as new) it was pretty simple to get someone up and running with a reasonably well written application.



    I think that the current version of the framework punishes the developer too much if they step outside of the "Microsoft" way of doing things. As soon as you stop using the drag-drop method of programming, the complexity curve starts to rise sharply.

  • Being the recipient of some good teaching, and some very, very bad teaching, I tend to agree. The examples that are out there are for the most part, dismal at best. Terms are thrown around like candy at a Fourth of July parade. Yep, I've managed to build some very cool stuff, (and it's getting better), but it's been a slow learning curve. I built my first multi-threaded app the other day. There are few decent resources out there in this area. Even fewer in VB. I know, I know, C# is the language of choice. Doesn't matter. I think I'm learning more about coding in C# from trying to convert it to VB than anything else.



    That all having been said. I appreciate your book (as I've said multiple times before), and the help on the site <a href="http://www.uberasp.net">(uberasp.net)</A> is very reliable. I just wish more of the "People Who Know" would share what they know, and help build the community in a little more constructive way.



    d8

Comments have been disabled for this content.