Mailman 3 October 2002 - Edu-sig

re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output)
by Arthur Oct. 11, 2002

Oct. 11, 2002

Kirby writes - >I don't find this on-the-face-of-it persuasive, as then any >counter-intuitive wrinkle X in any language (any "wart") could >be justified as "reminding the newbie to give attention to X". What I am experiencing - that is, from my point of view - I am trying to talk about something very specific in a very specific way, and mostly, having my point defeated by talking it to absurdium by resorting to generalities about mega-design issues. Perhaps, one of my key points is that nothing can be generalized from this particular specific, nor do I see myself attempting to advocate any generalization that can be made. I honestly don't see one . The old "/" operator is a gotcha if one choses to see it that way. I had told you in a private note some time ago, that I found it a particulary nasty gotcha when raising to a fractional power. From an experiential point of view, that tended to be the only time I would *actually* get caught with my pants down. But I have the ability to foresee where Bruce's and Michael's students are most likely to get caught with *their* pants down, under the new operator. Which are ways even more subtle, IMO, but just as likely to arise as with my raised to a power issue. So, on the gotcha score - at best a wash, IMO. With no generalizations to be made beyond that observation. Art

3 2

re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output
by Arthur Oct. 11, 2002

Oct. 11, 2002

>If you clarify further, great, and if you choose not to, great. Oh Lord why must I be so misunderstood? I am certainly not saying that Michael either understands or gives two shits about my "position" as to the historical record. I am saying I think he understands the trade-off I raise between making the div operator more intuitive for the physics student, and lulling them into a false sense of security as to the importance of the underlying typing. To repeat. He disagrees with me, though, as to where I come out.. Guess what, I can handle that fine. Art

2 1

RE: Rationals
by John Posner Oct. 11, 2002

Oct. 11, 2002

> > int / int --> float > Why not this? int / int --> rat After all, the definition of "rational" is "int divided by int". -- John Posner jjposner(a)snet.net

5 8

re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output)
by Arthur Oct. 11, 2002

Oct. 11, 2002

>Indeed, Art, I'm sick and tired of you. And I, believe or not, truly wish that weren't so. >You did not respond to my explanation of the division change using the >substitutibility rule. It's a technical issue, whether or not you >understand it. I did, in effect. By stating on a number of occasions that I understand that the issue goes beyond the first take of the non-programmer. Have you responding in any serious way to my point about a potentially harmeful side effect. In the year over which this has been discussed. Is my point that fundamenatlly unworthy of reply? The form of your replies and non-replies indicates a position that it is. I respectfully disagree. Did *you* learn to program with Python? Art

11 23

Re: [Edu-sig] RE: Rationals
by Kirby Urner Oct. 11, 2002

Oct. 11, 2002

At 01:15 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > This conflicts with the current redefinition of div such > > that int/int --> float, meaning code currently being redone > > to match 2.2 will have to be redone again. > >Um, in 2.2, 1/2 is still 0, unless you use python -Qnew. :-) > >--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) Yes --- getting ahead of myself. By "current redefinition" I'm really talking about the fait accompli: the __future__ is inevitable (we are Borg, resistence is futile etc. etc.). Kirby

1 0

re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output
by Arthur Oct. 11, 2002

Oct. 11, 2002

Me: >>Simply, clearly, and undisputably. Kirby: >You're talking about some remarks in the VPython docs yes? To continue a monolgue that I agree is absolutely pointles, but at the same time can, if one chooses to see it as such, is also absolutely harmless: No, Kirby. I am referencing the fact that the original PEP spoke *only* of the newbie issue. But more importantly I am referencing the fact that Guido in the course of the discussion referenced the work of Pausch and Sherwood, quite specifically and on numerous occassions and in a way that indicated that to him it provided what amounted to a scientific basis for a conclusion that the change was necessary and important to be made on behalf of newbies. I am referencing the fact that after all the contentious debate, the announcment of the fact that it was a (near) done deal came in the form of an announcement by Guido that he was sending over a patch to Bruce Sherwood effectuating the change so that Bruce would no longer need to maintain a forked Python. Which BTW Sherwood in fact never did, to my knowledge. I am repeating the fact that in the course of the debate Guido specifically responded a post of mine by pointing to the Sherwood classroom experience as *proof* - as in science - that whatever Guido might have thought my point was, it was groundless Why clutter up the list with quotes and links. It's all there on the record. I quite believe Tim that that was not the substance of *his* discussions on the matter with Guido. So? Art

2 1

re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output
by Arthur Oct. 11, 2002

Oct. 11, 2002

Tim writes - >In all the conversations I've ever had with him on the topic, neither >Sherwood nor Pausch came up. Arthur, you've been told that more times than >I can keep track of, but you still bring them up endlessly. Is it important to make me seem more irrational and arbritrary than I already do? "Arthur, you've been told...." Unacceptable wording, and unacceptable implications. I *don't* have private conversations with Guido and am perfectly well entitled to respond to what is of record. Which simply, clearer, and undisputably is not consistent with your private conversations. Simply, clearly, and undisputably. I can't help that. I have been made the fool enough, thank you. Art

3 2

Re: [Edu-sig] re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output)
by Arthur Oct. 10, 2002

Oct. 10, 2002

> > The impugning of the competence or motivation of *anyone* via a list is > completely non-constructive. I think Colin Powell's response to Harry > Belafonte is appropriate in this context (since it is topical at the > moment). I agree. And will forward your comment to Kirby with whom I fight about politics, as a sideline. > For those of us on the list, it is a complete distraction. We are in no > position to verify or impeach your judgment on the matter. And it is > meaningless (though a popular pastime) for us to vote on the subject and/or > contribute to perpetuation of the soap opera. Expressing it and having it heard, when it is felt strongly and securely, has to be part of what the list is about. Guido could have ended the conversation with me a year ago by saying anything that indicated that he actually heard me, and why he thought my point was either wrong, or overriden by point Y. He would in fact preempt my point specifically by saying that Bruce Sherwood's classroom experience proves otherwise. I can dig up the exchange if pressed. Which only indicates he was not hearing me - at all. And of course setting me off further on the Bruce Sherwood issue. > Furthermore, the elitist stance of requiring some demonstrated level of > competence before being able to speak is almost completely contrary to the > focus and theme of this particular list (i.e., CP4E). Really smart people > say stupid things. I made it clear why I think Bruce is fair game. Putting his criticism of Python in the documentation of an application he didn't write, then distributing it. I personally resent it particularly because I happen to love the application. VPython. Putting the weight of that wonderful code he didn't write behind his not particularly informed opinion. You wanna talk bullshit. I'm sorry - no regrets. >Someone who has not delved deeply into something can > have something bright to observe. No one in this list is clueless and > everyone deserves credit for being here and willing to participate. Ad > hominem observations do *nothing* for honoring the spirit of inquiry or > creating a welcome environment. It reduces the conversation to one of > personalities and argument and nothing concrete. Think of all the newbies > who are now concerned that some fellow named Art may have a public sentiment > to offer about their qualifications! > > I have personal reservations about Python as a language of choice. I have > some concern that the compromises that have been made in the general (not > specifically Pythonese) programming-language appropriation of mathematical > terminology have been damaging to mathematics and its teaching, so I am not > so willing to defend that situation. (Here, if it is not clear, I am > disagreeing with you about 1/2=0.) I happen to be more interested in the teaching of mathematics than I am in the teaching of programming. And think I have some interesting ideas, that have been actualized to a decent extent, to help turn the tables and make programming a good servant to that cause. Have lectured by invitation to the math faculties at a few universities on the subject. To, I think, an interested response. Though they don't know what to make of me either. I am neither a mathematician nor an educator. But in the end I am quite sure nobody felt their time was wasted. I talk quite specifically about the choice of Python as my implementation language in those presentations. The math professor who is sort of sponsoring me - having found what I had done and appreciating some of what makes it unique - was a Scheme head. Though he is happily exploring Python as of now. > > At the same time I am fascinated by the Edu-sig community and what it is up > to. I have no complaint against Python and I love what people are able to > accomplish with it. I am not anti-Python. I still use it for examples in > some of my work. It just doesn't satisfy my requirements for certain > things, and there are pitfalls that I don't like that may, in the event, not > turn out to be very significant. And my preferences don't tell me anything > about Guido at all! They're my preferences and they are in response to my > values and my research interests, not someone else's. Although I tend to > think of them as the right preferences (it is apparently how we are wired to > constantly fall into that), I find it valuable to be reminded that there is > no such thing. There are my preferences, your preferences, and Guido's > preferences, etc. > Along those lines, I also have strong preferences about arithmetic and value > types and related topics, including copy (e.g., storage models versus > reference versus value models). I find value in the discussions of actual > experiences people have had with being stopped, or having difficulty being > able to comprehend, explain or motivate. That is very useful. I collect > those emails and articles because it is valuable to understand and to be on > alert for in things I do. > > The bandy-rooster stuff is usually just an invitation for the delete key. > Feel free. You might miss something worth hearing in the morose, though. > I don't leap from the experiences people have to insisting there is > something broken that should be fixed or something there that should be > preserved. They are separate things. This list is not a very good place to > lobby for either. I think the PEP mechanism is where that happens, and then > there is what the official says. As the seasoned umpire says of pitched > strikes and balls, "they aren't anything until I call them." It is clear > who the umpire is here. If you want to play in this game, you get to play > by the umpire's rules. Certain moves get made and the thing to do is play > it out and see how it works. Constant revisitation just paralyzes things. > And mistakes are made, detected and repaired (or not), and then the next > mistake is made, etc. > My experience of Guido is that he is extremely gracious and open. Am I allowed to express that I have had a different expereince, without be accused of being abusive? >That is my personal experience. Whether his last notes are an expression of > irritation/impatience with things said on the list, I don't see that as > evidence of him being particularly thin-skinned. But I don't think asking > for evidence concerning the competence of third parties is what it is about. > It is about such discussions being bullshit from the get go. I think that's > what there is to take to heart. > > And I get that you find Python very valuable and appealing and you want to > see it widely known and well used. And sometimes, what there is to do is > see how it goes and let experience be the teacher. Reiteration about a > resolved matter simply doesn't add anything. > There is resolved and resolved. Certainly there is something quite unresolved as between Guido and myself. > For what it's worth, > > -- orcmid > > ------------------ > Dennis E. Hamilton > http://NuovoDoc.com/ > mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org > tel. +1-206-932-6970 > cell +1-206-779-9430 > The Miser Project: http://miser-theory.info/ > AIIM DMware: http://DMware.info/ >

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] re: Types and true division (was Re: strange outp
by Arthur Oct. 10, 2002

Oct. 10, 2002

>But I take the point that you disagree with me. The more important point actually, is that no where have I argued that my point is the killer argument that negates the ultimate sensibility of the change that was decided upon. I do think it is a point with enough merit to be considered along side the "it don't work like a calculator" argument - and achieve at least a wash. And even that is just an opinion. And the only reason to discuss it, is in the context of diminishing returns for changes to the language that cater to the out-of-the box expectations of the non-programmer. It's simply much more complicated than that - experientially. And I am hoping that Guido might include within his purview first hand reports, rather than second and third - as these issues arise in the future. Where such reports are available. Art

1 0

re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output)
by Arthur Oct. 10, 2002

Oct. 10, 2002

Kirby writes - >I personally don't think the primary reason for changing >the behavior of / was that it confused newbies. Maybe you are correct. And there certainly are good arguments for the change that are not related to that fact that it was not what folks who hadn't gotten to chapter 3 of the tutorial were expecting. But I've gone this far, might as well finish my thought. The most activist advocates of the change seemed to have been folk like Bruce Sherwood who was questioning Python's, let's say, saleability for purposes like his physics class and Randy Pausch, because the behavior did not play nice with his toy. I am not making up the fact that Guido mentioned Sherwood's classroom experience prominently and at key points during the debate. And it is clear that Pausch saw it as a *big* issue and that Guido quite well heard his position. But I was and remain confused. Confused why Guido needed documentary evidence that non-programmers would be surprised by 1/2 = 0. Common sense. Not sure how much of Sherwood's and Pausch's grant money went done the tubes making that discovery. But there is reality reality and there is emotional reality. So I won't claim to be in touch with reality reality. My own emotional reality (now the guy is talking about *emotions*) is that Guido has, when it comes to issues of Python and education, been more in tune to the needs and analysis of folks who don't take Python very seriously (like them) rather than folks who do (like me). Certainly I had nor have no reason to believe that Guido, in the weighing of pros and cons, took at all seriously the possiblity that the div operator change might be *harmful* to folks looking to Python as an introduction to programming. Despite the fact that someone who had been through the experience was trying to say he thought it would - me. I can tell you that Bruce Sherwood *still* understands little about Python. And Randy Pausch's true interest in Python and education is well indicated, in my mind, but the level of his participation on this list. And with that, hopefully I will find myself able to go silent on the issue of "/". Copy of course being a whole other story. Art

3 5