Mailman 3 November 2002 - Edu-sig

Re: [Edu-sig] Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )
by Arthur Nov. 22, 2002

Nov. 22, 2002

Terry writes - > Lastly, does it really matter if you teach kids to program when they're so > young? > > I doubt it seriously harms them not to, any more than not learning the piano > will. On the other hand, playing the piano, and programming, both are likely > to improve hand-eye-coordination, creative-thinking, and reasoning. Both are > a lot of fun. And both are things they will enjoy for a lifetime. > > Don't force them, but don't deny them, either. Choice of instrument is much > less important. I think we are all starting from the point of agreement that in todays world some exposure to what programming is all about, even if only in a broad way, is probably a good thing to find its way into folk's experience. Many folks might in fact disagree with us. But it wouldn't make sense for them to be spending time on Python's edu-sig list. I have always felt that it should be introduced in relationship to math - which is the Kirbyish approach. But the point being I don't think I see the piano playing analogy as relevant. I happen not be neutral as to whether kids should have the opportunity to learn a musical insturment. I think they should. And I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest it is better be done at a pretty young age. Mostly just empirical evidence. I don't think the same happens to be true as to programming. Just speculation, admittedly. I just believe that the prerequisite information, experience and cognitive development necessary to get much out of an effort to understand programming concepts generally kicks in at a later stage - and that in any case, nothing of significance is lost by beginning the process later. Learning to play the piano at age eight, might in fact be a better prerequisite for learning to program at 16, than learning to program at eight - if that makes any sense. But of course I started in my forties. So might be prejudiced on the issue. Art

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )
by Terry Hancock Nov. 22, 2002

Nov. 22, 2002

Let me summarize my point, since I think we agree on everything else. :-) I think the reason why one would want to teach Python, instead of, say Logo or Boxer, is NOT because Python is a *better* teaching language, but because it is more mainstream, AND it *comes close* to being *as good as* Logo for teaching. So, why does the mainstream-ness matter -- especially for elementary kids? 1) The teacher knows it. (In my case, this means me, the parent, who is tutoring my own children). That's because Python is actually useful to the teacher, not just to the kids. Knowing is widely regarded as a pre-requisite for good teaching. ;-D 2) The kids know the teacher uses it, so they can see it has real-world applications. That's not a teenager-only, "so I can get a job" kind of concern. Kids want to use "real stuff". My dad was a mechanic and a machinist, so when I was seven, I was very fascinated with cars and engines and lathes and mills and so on. I don't work on them now, but it motivated me to understand a lot of design and engineering principles. I still like machines, and I still have the hand-eye coordination and mechanical skill. My son has ambitions of writing his own computer games. I can try to generalize that, and say "well you have to learn all these concepts, which you can generally apply to the problem, and then one day you can take the time to actually learn the sort of language they're written in". OR, I can say, "hey 'Solar Wolf' is written in Python, want to learn Python?" He already wants to know how to hack Thrust so that the gravity points sideways (which is probably possible, though I think Thrust is written in C). My mom wanted to give my kids a big Christmas gift one year, and suggested getting a $150 toy piano from Amazon.com. I said "$150 for a toy!? -- why not spend the same money on an inexpensive, but *real* keyboard synthesizer? They'll like it better, they can keep using it as they get older, they can do music homework/practice with it, and (if it has a MIDI port), we'll one-day be able to hook it up to their computer and do sequencing and stuff". Same reasoning. So why not teach C++ or Java or Lisp? I think those languages are simply too hard to understand. There's too much time between writing the code and seeing the result, too much required groundwork to make anything remotely useful, and so on. Anybody under the age of 13, will, IMHO, get frustrated, bored, and lose interest. Logo (and now Boxer?) were created (or at least applied) to solve that problem (and it was clearly a problem when they were created). If Python, as a mainstream language, can even come close to Logo's simplicity of use, however, I think it ought to at least be considered as an early teaching language. Especially if you, the teacher, know Python and not Logo. If on the other hand, you are teaching Logo successfully, then I'm not sure Python should displace it. It is probably still harder to learn than Logo, and the merits of using a mainstream language are primarily the two I mention above. If you already know Logo, "1" doesn't apply, and if your kids are already paying attention, then "2" doesn't either. But if you're like me, and you were thinking, "gosh I need to have Logo to teach my kids" (but you already have Python), I'd say, forget it -- teach Python, you won't lose much, and it will be easier for you, which means you're more likely to do it. Lastly, does it really matter if you teach kids to program when they're so young? I doubt it seriously harms them not to, any more than not learning the piano will. On the other hand, playing the piano, and programming, both are likely to improve hand-eye-coordination, creative-thinking, and reasoning. Both are a lot of fun. And both are things they will enjoy for a lifetime. Don't force them, but don't deny them, either. Choice of instrument is much less important. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com

2 1

re: Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )
by Arthur Nov. 22, 2002

Nov. 22, 2002

I had written - >And other than needing to compromise on speed issues (I am doing 3d graphics) I have yet to come across anythng I >wanted to accomplish that I couldn't get done in Python in a way that ended up seeming succinct and elegant. Though I am >not doing anything tremendously sophisticated, of course. I should add to that, the ability to do something equivalent to Java web-based applets - that is without giving up my access to C based Python libraries, like Numeric and VPython. Not a feature request - just verbalizing. Art

2 1

Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )
by Arthur Nov. 22, 2002

Nov. 22, 2002

Terry writes - >I think you underestimate the age at which people begin writing useful >software. I've met an awful lot of programmers online who turned out to be >teenagers. They had to have *already* learned to program by that time. I can't disagree, having followed developments in the realm of graphics for some time. Certainly much of the most interesting work in that realm has been done by young folks. VPython, just as an example, was written by David Scherer (who was at one point active on this list) when he was a college sophomore, I believe. And already an accomplished and experienced programmer. So we seem not to be disagreeing much on specific points, just a little as to the relevance of those points to the issue. But I also agree that, all things being equal (or close enough), exposure to a professional programming language is preferable to a pseudo language, at even a young age. But more than anything that's the question I am raising. Is all things being equal, or close enough, a realistic possiblity?? I would guess the Logo and Boxer folk might distinguish between a professional prgramming language and a language designed for personal use, and would argue that their languages are good for a lifetime, for personal needs. If one is going "pro" certainly one goes further. But with the Logo and Boxer experience put to good use, even in that case. >PC >The University of California has prohibited our providing information about PC >Boxer. Seek other sources of information. Followed that thread myself and came to a dead-end. It looks like there may have been a commercial spin-off, which had made the software available at one point, but then went to a purely on-line curriculum. Anyway, could not find a Windows version to look at - anywhere. >I think the point is that it may be worthwhile to teach a somewhat harder >language so that the continuity is kept. I would consider Boxer to be >*fundamentally* different (being a graphical language, and therefore not a >"language" at all from a certain perspective, but an "authoring >environment"). Logo, on the other hand, is just another language -- not >*that* much easier to learn than Python, and generally less capable. Yes. But if Python gets there it seems to me it will be from the top down. In other words I believe Python's "wheelhouse" in terms of education is at the college and late high school stages. If it becomes pervasive enough there, the advantages of using it for younger grades might then, and - I would argue - only then, become a true factor. >What *I* think you need, is to learn lots of different *programming styles*: >procedural, functional, object-oriented, connectionist, and so on. Interesting that for someone like myself for whom Python is my first, and really only language, these distinctions are somewhat lost on me. I have, and continue to develop, a sense of what is possible and how things are best approached in Python. What style that leads me to in a particular case is not something of which I am very aware. To the extent that Python *is* the future, maybe those distinctions are becoming less meaningful. And other than needing to compromise on speed issues (I am doing 3d graphics) I have yet to come across anythng I wanted to accomplish that I couldn't get done in Python in a way that ended up seeming succinct and elegant. Though I am not doing anything tremendously sophisticated, of course. On the other hand, now that Boost2 is out, I am intent on learning enough C++ to allow me to use it in conjunction with Python (and Boost) to be in a position to eliminate any performance bottlenecks that I encounter that are in fact more than an issue of inefifient Python coding. Given that I will be fully configured to conquer the world, it seems to me. Art

2 1

Re: [Edu-sig] Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )
by Terry Hancock Nov. 21, 2002

Nov. 21, 2002

On Thursday 21 November 2002 12:30 pm, Arthur wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly with this - from the student perspective - from, say, > the second half of high school and beyond. I think that by that stage the > fact the students are learning a real world programming language brings an > excitement to the enterprise that could not be true if presenting a > "teaching" language. But - again from the student perspective - I don't > think this has relevance for elementary or middle school. I think you underestimate the age at which people begin writing useful software. I've met an awful lot of programmers online who turned out to be teenagers. They had to have *already* learned to program by that time. > > Having the language you teach be a language you can actually use in later > life is therefore an advantage [...] > Logo folk would claim this is true of Logo. > > The article referenced in Catherine's post at > ftp://soe.berkeley.edu/pub/boxer/Distribution/20reasons.pdf > makes the case that this is truer as to Boxer then it is for Logo. http://dewey.soe.berkeley.edu/boxer.html/availability.html """ Availability Macintosh A Macintosh Boxer -- including documentation, demonstration materials and tools -- is available for free download. Linux There are currently no active plans for a Linux version of Boxer. There is an older version of Boxer available for Sun Workstations running Sun OS 4.x. (Sorry, at this time, there is no version for Sun Solaris.) PC he University of California has prohibited our providing information about PC Boxer. Seek other sources of information. """ Otherwise, yes Boxer looks interesting. I applaud the guy on the Python list who's thinking about writing a Boxer environment, in ... <drumroll> ... python. ;-) > Certainly agree as to Python's general usefulness as a teaching language, > but question again whether these advantages kick in very much at an > elementary school level. I think the point is that it may be worthwhile to teach a somewhat harder language so that the continuity is kept. I would consider Boxer to be *fundamentally* different (being a graphical language, and therefore not a "language" at all from a certain perspective, but an "authoring environment"). Logo, on the other hand, is just another language -- not *that* much easier to learn than Python, and generally less capable. To use the terms in the boxer paper you refered me to -- I think it might be okay to accept a slightly higher threshhold, for a greatly higher ceiling. Boxer has an even lower threshhold than Logo, and possibly a ceiling between Logo's and Python's (taking the paper's word for it -- I can't form an opinion without a version that runs on a computer I have access to!). (Mind you, Python's ceiling is not so much a fundamental property of the language, but a consequence of being widely adopted -- the standard library is quite nice, and this is due to so many people using Python professionally. This is true of Java, Perl, and other "mainstream" languages too, of course). > Interesting that something like Pyrex - which I have not looked at but think > of as directed to the advanced user - would include syntax you see as better > from the perspective of a kids intuition. > > Also, I think they were a bit underimpressed with the graphics -- spoiled > on > > computer games, I guess. > > Have you looked at VPython? Well, I have now. Thanks. I'll have to give that more attention. > So I guess I am on one hand suggesting that Python might not be the way to > go for elementary and middle schools, large scale and long term. > > But for those who are convinced otherwise, I certainly cannot see *not* > bringing VPython into play in some fundamental way. > > > Still, for all that, I think Python is a pretty good starter language. I > > certainly like it better than C, fortran, lisp, basic, cobol, or perl for > > that purpose. > > Agree. > > But the competition - if we insist on starting early (personally don't see > it as either important that we do, or harmful that we might try)- is Logo > (and apparently Boxer) rather than any of the languages you mention. Unless we're challenging the whole idea of a "teaching" language (i.e. one that's only good for teaching). My point is that if one of the mainstream languages comes close to competing with these limited-domain languages, then it might be worth using it just because it's mainstream. I deeply question the idea that you need to learn lots of different programming languages to understand programming. That's like saying you can't understand grammar without learning lots of natural languages. True, you will wind up with biases to your native language, but you can still be very effective. Of course, I *did* decided to study multiple computer and natural languages in my life, and they did *enhance* my understanding of programming and grammar -- but that's not why I studied them. Nor do I consider either essential for every student. What *I* think you need, is to learn lots of different *programming styles*: procedural, functional, object-oriented, connectionist, and so on. Few languages support more than one style well, so most observers map this idea onto lots of different *languages*. Python, however, does several styles very well (though perhaps none as well as their champion languages -- the bane of being a generalist), which adds the interesting possibility of combining styles, as well. Also, if the student can be comfortable with the basic syntax of a language, I think it may be even more clear what the *significant* difference between the styles is (what's more important about C++, that it uses brackets to delimit blocks, or that it has objects and methods?). Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't?
by Arthur Nov. 21, 2002

Nov. 21, 2002

> > I think the attraction to teaching with Python is that it is indeed a > mainstream language, and not a special "teaching language". Very few real > applications are written in Logo (unless I'm really out of touch). I agree wholeheartedly with this - from the student perspective - from, say, the second half of high school and beyond. I think that by that stage the fact the students are learning a real world programming language brings an excitement to the enterprise that could not be true if presenting a "teaching" language. But - again from the student perspective - I don't think this has relevance for elementary or middle school. > Having the language you teach be a language you can actually use in later life is therefore an advantage True enough. But it depends on what the expectations are. Logo folk would claim this is true of Logo. The article referenced in Catherine's post at ftp://soe.berkeley.edu/pub/boxer/Distribution/20reasons.pdf makes the case that this is truer as to Boxer then it is for Logo. > Because it's so inclusive of different programming techniques, Python is a > very good general purpose solution -- it provides good access to several > types of programming technique: procedural, object-oriented, and functional. > With the right modules installed, it has tremendous reach -- scientific, AI, > web/CGI programming, email interaction, etc. For some people, it may be > enough to know only Python. > Certainly agree as to Python's general usefulness as a teaching language, but question again whether these advantages kick in very much at an elementary school level. > So, I think it may well be worth using Python, even if it is slightly > sub-optimal for teaching. But I think it *does* have some non-intuitive > features -- at least from a seven-year-old's point of view. Personally I > think the most obnoxious is the lack of simple loop constructs: > > for i in range(10): > print i > > is not very intuitive to kids who don't know about domains and ranges -- > fairly advanced math concepts, even if they seem trivial to me now. > > for 1 < = i < 10: > > would be more intuitive and Pyrex comes very close to this, with: > > for i from 1 <= i < 10: > > which Greg Ewing (Pyrex's author) proposed adding to mainstream Python. > I'm not sure why we need the "i from" cruft, but it is better. Interesting that something like Pyrex - which I have not looked at but think of as directed to the advanced user - would include syntax you see as better from the perspective of a kids intuition. > > Also, I think they were a bit underimpressed with the graphics -- spoiled on > computer games, I guess. Broken record - but its OK since I have nothing to do with creating or maintaining it. Have you looked at VPython? >>> from visual import * Visual-2001-12-24 >>> ball=sphere() >>> ball.color=color.red High quality, lit and shaded, OpenGL rendered sphere. The beauty being it all works from the interactive prompt. The sphere appears on sphere(), and changes color in front of one's eyes at ball.color=color.red. And all the basic functionality is in a dll (I do windows) of less than 700k. Perhaps because it is being used to do college level scientific visualization as its first mission, it is more overlooked than it might be as a tool for children. So I guess I am on one hand suggesting that Python might not be the way to go for elementary and middle schools, large scale and long term. But for those who are convinced otherwise, I certainly cannot see *not* bringing VPython into play in some fundamental way. > Still, for all that, I think Python is a pretty good starter language. I > certainly like it better than C, fortran, lisp, basic, cobol, or perl for > that purpose. > Agree. But the competition - if we insist on starting early (personally don't see it as either important that we do, or harmful that we might try)- is Logo (and apparently Boxer) rather than any of the languages you mention. Art

1 0

Re: [Edu-sig] Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )
by Arthur Nov. 21, 2002

Nov. 21, 2002

----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Hancock" <hancock(a)anansispaceworks.com> To: "Arthur" <ajs(a)ix.netcom.com> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" ) > On Thursday 21 November 2002 05:11 am, Arthur wrote: > > I do understand that it is reasonable to believe that out-of-the-box Python > > is more appropriate for children than out-of-the-box Lisp, for example. Or > > any other mainstream programming language, for that matter. But more > > appropriate than out-of-the box Logo? Would a language related to Python, > > but not quite Python - be more optimum? > > I think the attraction to teaching with Python is that it is indeed a > mainstream language, and not a special "teaching language". Very few real > applications are written in Logo (unless I'm really out of touch). > > In fact, I once taught Logo turtle-graphics to 2nd graders, but I can't > remember a single bit of it -- because *I* don't write programs in Logo. I > remember that it was very simple -- but I don't remember how to do it. > > Some people are of the "more-the-merrier" school regarding languages -- > especially people for whom programming is their career. But for other people, > programming in their spare time, or as an additional tool for a career in > another field (like science or teaching), there's a significant advantage to > learning fewer languages. Having the language you teach be a language you > can actually use in later life is therefore an advantage (Why don't we teach > American kids the Greek alphabet (or Hiragana or Cyrillic or IPA) to prepare > them for learning the Roman characters later in life? Sure, learning more > languages makes each easier, but not easier than learning one.). > > Because it's so inclusive of different programming techniques, Python is a > very good general purpose solution -- it provides good access to several > types of programming technique: procedural, object-oriented, and functional. > With the right modules installed, it has tremendous reach -- scientific, AI, > web/CGI programming, email interaction, etc. For some people, it may be > enough to know only Python. > > So, I think it may well be worth using Python, even if it is slightly > sub-optimal for teaching. But I think it *does* have some non-intuitive > features -- at least from a seven-year-old's point of view. Personally I > think the most obnoxious is the lack of simple loop constructs: > > for i in range(10): > print i > > is not very intuitive to kids who don't know about domains and ranges -- > fairly advanced math concepts, even if they seem trivial to me now. > > for 1 < = i < 10: > > would be more intuitive and Pyrex comes very close to this, with: > > for i from 1 <= i < 10: > > which Greg Ewing (Pyrex's author) proposed adding to mainstream Python. > I'm not sure why we need the "i from" cruft, but it is better. > > And, of course, the ever popular, but Guido-despised "do-while" construct. > ;-) > > Not trying to start a flame war with these -- these have already been fought > over for mainstream Python. I just bring them up, because they are teaching > obstacles for younger kids. "Daddy, what's a range?" I've also never quite > figured out the "right" way to grab a little input from the user -- there are > several ways to do this in Python, not "one obvious way". This is > surprisingly rarely needed in real programming applications, but in a > teaching setting, it's very common. > > Nevertheless, I had a little success starting my (now 2nd grade) son with > Python 2.2's "turtle" module. But he still has to just memorize some things: > > from turtle import * > > And why's it called a Pen? Why not Turtle? ;-) My kids would want to > name a turtle, and that's where we get into object-oriented programming! > For my younger child, it ought to draw a turtle, too, instead of an > impersonal arrow. Maybe I'll try to improve it someday. :-) > > Also, I think they were a bit underimpressed with the graphics -- spoiled on > computer games, I guess. They like designing game levels in Pingus or Rocks > & Diamonds better. They might still be a little too young for this -- I > don't want to frustrate or bore them with it. > > Still, for all that, I think Python is a pretty good starter language. I > certainly like it better than C, fortran, lisp, basic, cobol, or perl for > that purpose. > > Cheers, > Terry > > -- > Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) > Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com >

1 0

Fwd: Re: [Edu-sig] Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )
by Terry Hancock Nov. 21, 2002

Nov. 21, 2002

On Thursday 21 November 2002 05:11 am, Arthur wrote: > I do understand that it is reasonable to believe that out-of-the-box Python > is more appropriate for children than out-of-the-box Lisp, for example. Or > any other mainstream programming language, for that matter. But more > appropriate than out-of-the box Logo? Would a language related to Python, > but not quite Python - be more optimum? I think the attraction to teaching with Python is that it is indeed a mainstream language, and not a special "teaching language". Very few real applications are written in Logo (unless I'm really out of touch). In fact, I once taught Logo turtle-graphics to 2nd graders, but I can't remember a single bit of it -- because *I* don't write programs in Logo. I remember that it was very simple -- but I don't remember how to do it. Some people are of the "more-the-merrier" school regarding languages -- especially people for whom programming is their career. But for other people, programming in their spare time, or as an additional tool for a career in another field (like science or teaching), there's a significant advantage to learning fewer languages. Having the language you teach be a language you can actually use in later life is therefore an advantage (Why don't we teach American kids the Greek alphabet (or Hiragana or Cyrillic or IPA) to prepare them for learning the Roman characters later in life? Sure, learning more languages makes each easier, but not easier than learning one.). Because it's so inclusive of different programming techniques, Python is a very good general purpose solution -- it provides good access to several types of programming technique: procedural, object-oriented, and functional. With the right modules installed, it has tremendous reach -- scientific, AI, web/CGI programming, email interaction, etc. For some people, it may be enough to know only Python. So, I think it may well be worth using Python, even if it is slightly sub-optimal for teaching. But I think it *does* have some non-intuitive features -- at least from a seven-year-old's point of view. Personally I think the most obnoxious is the lack of simple loop constructs: for i in range(10): print i is not very intuitive to kids who don't know about domains and ranges -- fairly advanced math concepts, even if they seem trivial to me now. for 1 < = i < 10: would be more intuitive and Pyrex comes very close to this, with: for i from 1 <= i < 10: which Greg Ewing (Pyrex's author) proposed adding to mainstream Python. I'm not sure why we need the "i from" cruft, but it is better. And, of course, the ever popular, but Guido-despised "do-while" construct. ;-) Not trying to start a flame war with these -- these have already been fought over for mainstream Python. I just bring them up, because they are teaching obstacles for younger kids. "Daddy, what's a range?" I've also never quite figured out the "right" way to grab a little input from the user -- there are several ways to do this in Python, not "one obvious way". This is surprisingly rarely needed in real programming applications, but in a teaching setting, it's very common. Nevertheless, I had a little success starting my (now 2nd grade) son with Python 2.2's "turtle" module. But he still has to just memorize some things: from turtle import * And why's it called a Pen? Why not Turtle? ;-) My kids would want to name a turtle, and that's where we get into object-oriented programming! For my younger child, it ought to draw a turtle, too, instead of an impersonal arrow. Maybe I'll try to improve it someday. :-) Also, I think they were a bit underimpressed with the graphics -- spoiled on computer games, I guess. They like designing game levels in Pingus or Rocks & Diamonds better. They might still be a little too young for this -- I don't want to frustrate or bore them with it. Still, for all that, I think Python is a pretty good starter language. I certainly like it better than C, fortran, lisp, basic, cobol, or perl for that purpose. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com ------------------------------------------------------- -- -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com

4 4

Re: not quite Python - be more optimum?
by Dean Goodmanson Nov. 21, 2002

Nov. 21, 2002

>> not quite Python - be more optimum? Although I can't speek for the education community, the thought is intriguing but scary. I went from BASIC->C->C++,Java,Python. When I learned of Logo I was jealous I missed out. I have yet to dive into functional languages. After getting into Python and having the previous language's concepts make more sense, I wished that I had never visited BASIC but first learned with Python. I would hope programming training with Python could be "dumbed down" enough through curriculum, not re-write or search for a more obscure (most likely unmarketable) language. But, there may be the need for another toy/educational language. ABC, anyone? (If your feeling testy, please don't take my vague adjectives as taunts, but simple attempts at brevity.) -- Dean http://pycs.net/sqr __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus � Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com

2 1

Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )
by Arthur Nov. 21, 2002

Nov. 21, 2002

Beth writes: >I realize this doesn't help you at all being that my students are 15 years younger than yours, but I use the deitel book in my >elementary and middle school python classes and they LOVE it. Recent posts on python-list indicate that even among people interested enough in Python to subscribe to that list, there is some considerable disagreement as to whether Python is in fact appropriate/optimal as a first programming language. I believe, at least for a certain potential audience, it in fact is. But would probably not put elementary and middle school students within that target. There is also a very long thread on the python-list as to "Why is Python popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?". Logo derived from L:isp, with a specific design goal of being used to introduce children to programming concpets. And to the extent that there remains interest in that, Logo seems to remain today by a wide margin the most widely used tool. I then wonder what folks who are interested in introducing programming to children via Python feel that Python brings to the table that Logo lacks. I do understand that it is reasonable to believe that out-of-the-box Python is more appropriate for children than out-of-the-box Lisp, for example. Or any other mainstream programming language, for that matter. But more appropriate than out-of-the box Logo? Would a language related to Python, but not quite Python - be more optimum? Art

2 1