20 replies to this topic

[game of thought]

In general does he do good programming tutorials or does he teach messy code? I cant really tell as i'm new please answer

Thank you for your time

[Uzumakis]

Beleive me he is really good i consider him my Second teacher for Java Programming and Application Development
hiss toutorials are divided into three Parts
1st Beginner
in which there are round about 80 video toutorials
2nd
Medium
in which he covers some general things
3rd
Which is the game development teaching toutorials
i was able to step into world of Game Development thanks to him
Check on you tube

[thok]

I'm assuming you're referring to the tutorials specifically about game programming. "Opinions" are dangerous things on forums; I don't want to start a flame war. Not at all my intention, so here goes.

I've watched a few of the videos. While the videos clearly show you how to build _something_, I have my doubts about the competence of the creator. While I can commend the fellow for putting a lot of work into his numerous tutorials, he seems to be lacking some qualifications for lecturing on the subject. The first red flag for me was when he said something to the effect of "you times X by N", which I took to mean "you multiply X by N". There are many examples of this in the videos which imply that, while the presenter can clearly build some things, he does not have a strong grasp of programming and mathematical concepts.

To answer your question directly, yes, I believe the code is a bit messy. That's my opinion with 5+ years of full-time programming experience.

Sorry if this is a bit "ad hominem", but given what I've observed in content of the tutorials, I would advise against following them too closely (especially if you're a beginner). I think there is some value in them, however, for building simple animations and such, but to turn this stuff into a working, usable game foundation will take a lot of work.

Graned, criticizing without suggesting an alternative is not constructive. Unfortunately, I cannot think of an alternative set of video tutorials which show as much as detail as these. Perhaps someone else knows and can post a link.

[Uzumakis]

lolx
well its not like that you can become a game developer in java coming out of blue and just start programming at the professional level you have to start from the basics both as the application developr and the game developer

[thok]

lolx
well its not like that you can become a game developer in java coming out of blue and just start programming at the professional level you have to start from the basics both as the application developr and the game developer

I agree with you on that. But that wasn't my point. Whether the content is basic or not is irrelevant. My point is that the author appears to be lacking the proper comprehension of the subject matter to be teaching even at a basic level. The style of the tutorials is very "cargo cult", which is not good for anyone (especially beginners). There's a big difference between "simplifying" and "dumbing down". Explaining complex concepts using simple clear language is useful. Dumbing things down and overprotecting newbies from what is really going on is not useful. What's even worse is when the presenter doesn't actually explain things properly (as in, using incorrect terminology to describe concepts). An example:

In one of this Python tutorials, he explained how tuples can be passed to Python function and expanded into positional arguments. Here's the function, more or less:

def example(a, b, c):
  return a + b * c

He states that this function "returns a mathematical function". Well, no it does not. It returns the value of an expression (most likely a mathematical expression). It is certainly not a "mathematical function". I found this just by picking a video at random and watching a few random minutes. These poor explanations are all over the place in the tutorials. So while the author does appear to grasp some concepts (it quite clear, given that he can write some working programs), he does not appear to have clear enough understanding of the subject matter to be teaching it properly. That's my point.

[BCullis]

Just to help make Thok's point, the key issue is: teaching someone means you're taking responsibility for instructing them correctly. Many people can learn a concept and apply it in their own work, but not nearly as many can communicate the idea effectively enough to be able to teach it well. While the video author can program, he can't necessarily teach in a solid enough manner that would let new programmers establish a good understanding of what they're doing.

All that being said, it's free videos on the internet. The guy's taking his own time to make them (though is likely compensated via youtube partnership), and they're no-risk learning for anyone curious. It's like getting a free peer tutor in a class: they may not be the best at explaining it to you, but it's a great asset (coupled with more rigorous sources) if it helps you learn.

[Serapth]

Unless of course its teaching you bad things, in which case, its more harmful than helpful.

I've no experience, I have no need for such tutorials and find video a poor way to learn. That's said, people whose opinion I respect say they are unequivocally bad. In terms of content taught that is.

[Bacterius]

Some people will find them useful, others won't. Opinions are irrelevant here.

[Serapth]

Some people will find them useful, others won't. Opinions are irrelevant here.

Not true. If people with experience on the topics covered by NB say the content is *wrong*, that is incredibly relevant.

[thok]

Not true. If people with experience on the topics covered by NB say the content is *wrong*, that is incredibly relevant.

+1

Some people will find them useful, others won't. Opinions are irrelevant here.

The title of the post is "Opinion on boston". The OP was asking for opinions, and was specifically inquiring about the perceived quality of the tutorials. So in this case, I would say opinions are perfectly relevant and on-topic.

[EpicWally]

First, to qualify my opinion, I will say I am very new to programming (I picked up Java < 6 months ago, though I had some procedural experience before, basic, vb, etc.) My first instruction into the language was a text-book. Very dry, though comprehensive. Part way through it, I discovered TheNewBoston. I watched all of his Java videos, and while I can appreciate that his explanations aren't perfect (even at my level I noticed a number of mistakes, and I agree with thok that this is indicative of his level of competancy) overall I found the videos very helpful for a beginner, and have recommended them to others just getting started here. Were he to put out an "expert" series of tutorials, I don't think I would value them particularly highly.

What I belive it boils down to is a debate I've recently been having with my girlfriend (an 8th grade math teacher) on teaching the "how" vs teaching the "why." Ultimately, if you know the "why", the "how" can generally follow quite easily. Unfortunately, for most students, learning the theory behind the "why" without the "how", is a very daunting task. For that reason, it is often best to teach the "how" first, and once that's understood, show the "why" that's behind it to solidify the concept. I think Bucky (TheNewBoston) does a good job explaining the "how" but having a limited understanding of the subject matter himself, falls short of properly explaining the "why." It is for this reason that I advocate supplementing his videos with a textbook, or other more complete resource. The textbook by itself, is a painful way to learn, and while it can teach the "why" very well, I think it falls short of explaining the "how" the way a person can. Watching his videos (which can be entertaining) and then going back to the book to make connections, prevents it from being a dry learning experience, and develops a more complete understanding of the subject matter. Think about it, in college (or wherever you took classes to learn programming) you first listened to a lecture by a professor, then went back to the text book for homework/reading between classes. Same idea.

My $0.02.
-Wally

[FLeBlanc]

... find video a poor way to learn...

This. So much this. I've watched this growing tendency to do video tutorials with an ever-increasing sense of dismay. I don't know if it's just that people are so in love with the sound of their own voices or what, but they are all over the place these days. And this is just not a good format. So often, you get someone shoe-horning one or two useful things into a 28 minute video, but those two useful things are buried in 26 minutes of elementary basics, non-sequiturs, and other crap. Video tutorials are at their finest when they are focused with laser-like precision on a single, relatively simple topic, rather than these gigantic rambling monstrosities you see so often.

[EpicWally]

...So often, you get someone shoe-horning one or two useful things into a 28 minute video, but those two useful things are buried in 26 minutes of elementary basics, non-sequiturs, and other crap. Video tutorials are at their finest when they are focused with laser-like precision on a single, relatively simple topic, rather than these gigantic rambling monstrosities you see so often.

While this isn't off-topic, it's a bit too general for the question posed by the OP. To bring it back to the topic of TheNewBoston, if you have watched any of his videos (I'm assuming you haven't due to your hatred of the format) all of them are 5-10 minutes in length, and are about a single concept. These wouldn't fit the trend of "gigantic rambling monstrosities" you described.

[Serapth]

... find video a poor way to learn...

This. So much this. I've watched this growing tendency to do video tutorials with an ever-increasing sense of dismay. I don't know if it's just that people are so in love with the sound of their own voices or what, but they are all over the place these days. And this is just not a good format. So often, you get someone shoe-horning one or two useful things into a 28 minute video, but those two useful things are buried in 26 minutes of elementary basics, non-sequiturs, and other crap. Video tutorials are at their finest when they are focused with laser-like precision on a single, relatively simple topic, rather than these gigantic rambling monstrosities you see so often.

As someone who spends a great deal of his time creating (text) tutorials, I can tell you exactly why...

It's a hell of a lot easier.

You can do a video tutorial on a subject in a literal fraction of the time it takes to do a text based one. Plus, technical writing ( expressing complex subjects in simple to understand words ) is very much a skill in itself. The nice part about video is you can just ramble on to get your point across, while in text you need to be more concise.

There are area's where video can be massively more convenient, especially in demonstrating motion, or multipart steps, and I've switched to a mix of text, interspersed with video when needed. But for demonstrating something static like code, it's not a great format.

[ISDCaptain01]

I really liked thenewboston's way of teaching. Hes not dry or boring like the many textbooks out there and hes right to the point. I learned a lot of C++ from his site.

[BaneTrapper]

He does not give you base fundament as you get from a book. But i agree that hes fun, i did watch over 150 of his videos.
Kinda bugs me that he switches names with bacon and explains things as they where food, cause i had hard time understanding later how stuff actually works.

I would recommend him only if you know basic functions of c++, basic variables, operators, and since you are not gonna get that from him...
may as well get to other tutorials which are more in depth.

I remember one awesome guy did 40min videos on c++subjects indepth how functions actually work and what to evde what to do,
he had 14videos, but i don't remember his youtube channel name. Btw he had really annoying voice but he teaches really good while explaining everything there is needed to know.

[ICOnlyShadows]

The new Boston was one of the most helpful video tutorials I've watched since I started getting into programming. He does great Java tutorials and awesome C++ tutorials, but that's not all he does he does Math and all other programming languages too. A+ to the The new Boston!

[Uzumakis]

Every one has his own teaching style and for the beginners they need a style that is full of examples that's where he rocks

[Goran Milovanovic]

As someone who spends a great deal of his time creating (text) tutorials, I can tell you exactly why...

It's a hell of a lot easier.

As someone who makes video tutorials (like this Python series), I respectfully disagree.

You can do a video tutorial on a subject in a literal fraction of the time it takes to do a text based one. Plus, technical writing ( expressing complex subjects in simple to understand words ) is very much a skill in itself. The nice part about video is you can just ramble on to get your point across, while in text you need to be more concise.

It's a question of quality, not media type; Writing substandard tutorials would be just as easy as recording substandard tutorials.

[superman3275]

For The Video Tutorials Debate:
xoax.net <- Amazing for C++. He has 50 5 minute videos, each one going over one important subject, explained masterfully. Ever 10 or so tutorials he programs a really cool game in the console and teaches you how to do it. All of his explanations I have found to be correct and help me so far. I'm pretty sure he's going to start a Java and C# tutorial too, which I am waiting for eagerly.