[asolove]

I disagree. You didn't learn to talk by studying rhetoric. You imitated sounds and words that people made around you. Then you started being able to express your own ideas. Then, maybe, you learned how to say things well.

It's the same with computers. While some people may enjoy learning deductively about abstractions like algorithms and paradigms, studies have shown that most people learn inductively, by having something they want to do and figuring out what to do.

[jemka]

Human speech is a bad analogy. A better analogy would be grammar and spelling, which would make OP's argument stronger. The very argument you disagree with.

Truth is, you first learn the basics of speech communication. You understand sounds come from your mouth and given a specific cadence and tone you can form words to get what you want. This is no different than understanding the basic principals of computer programming. Principals all computer languages use. Specifics of the language (syntax, grammar, spelling) is something that can be mastered later, but without the principals, you're not going to master anything. This is a major reason why there are so many bad PHP examples out there. People don't learn to program, they learn to write PHP code poorly.

[zecho]

I find both of these analogies inadequate.

Spend more time around young children. They most definitely do not learn grammar before they can communicate. It is not a linear thing at all. People pick up parts of grammar like the Subject Verb Object syntax as they learn to mimmic diction and build vocabulary. They're constantly "wrong" and need to be corrected. With persistence and practice and, most importantly, interest, we acquire taste and style.

Communication is very much a trial and error kind of learning that is holistic rather than linear. "Learn x, then do y" versus "do y, then learn x" is a false dichotomy.