<DIV>From: John Zelle <JOHN.ZELLE@WARTBURG.EDU><BR>> ><BR>> > But I honestly believe all that buys me is the ability to be a<BR>> > run-of-the-mill-programmer.<BR>> <BR>> Perhaps, but no where near a run-of-the-mill student.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>For the record, I think that is really only a matter of degree of motivation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Alice's "lessons", for example, might be valid within the domain of people who don't </DIV>
<DIV>give a shit about learning to program. But then again, the chances of teaching someone who </DIV>
<DIV>doesn't give a shit about learning to program, to program - without the slight-of-hand</DIV>
<DIV>of changing the meaning of the word - is zero.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And for the record, my own motivation for learning to program was always as</DIV>
<DIV>a means to an ends. At some level I perceive the details of what it means to </DIV>
<DIV>be able to program as largely artifical construct in any case - whether it be the</DIV>
<DIV>Python, Java, Scheme construct. And therefore not compelling, in and of itself.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Realizing, as well, that is what is inevitable within these constructs - </DIV>
<DIV>i.e. what I guess computer science is *really* about - is not something I see </DIV>
<DIV>as accessible to me, at least without more motivation then I have to dig into it, </DIV>
<DIV>or the level of the kind of technical intelligence where things might pop out to </DIV>
<DIV>me more effortlessly.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I like to think that in other realms,.something other might be truer, but in the</DIV>
<DIV>technical realm I see myself as a middle brow, at best.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So I have not hesitated to consider my own learning curve as typical, and </DIV>
<DIV>suggestions from that experience as within the range of what would, should</DIV>
<DIV>be of interest to professional educators teaching at introductory levels.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Art</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>