Mailman 3 July 2003 - Edu-sig

Re: Least used builtins?
by Arthur July 6, 2003

July 6, 2003

Kirby writes - >What does or doesn't make sense to the newbie is irrelevant. And an amazing amount of bandwidth has been spent on python-list on the "good for newbies" issue. With much of that discussion inspired, encouraged by Guido. In fact, my position is not far from yours. Other than to say that *since we are arguing the good for newbies issue* anyway - I didn't bring it up - this is my perspective on that issue, based on my own experience. Definitely not arguing it should be, at this stage of Python's development, an overriding design principal. Have argued quite the contrary, in fact. And did so quite against the grain. Where were you then? ;) >It's the job of teachers to smooth the on ramp, and in that regard, just don't teach all the builtins to start >because they're all builtins doesn't mean each must be tackled in order, one by one. Let's not imagine we all have teachers. I understand, and said, that the point I am making is only of real significance for the folks undertaking self-teaching of Python. Which is probably, at this point, about 98% of the people who know it. And most particualrly and significantly for the sub-group who are self-taught, with Python as their first language. If you want, that is my constituency. I am proud to be their self-appointed representative. (You can do that in a land of BDFL's). >The strikes me as unimaginative, plodding. pitooey., Art

1 0

RE: [Edu-sig] Re: Least used builtins?
by urnerk＠qwest.net July 6, 2003

July 6, 2003

Just to represent another viewpoint, I'll say that what's in builtins has nothing to do with what does or does not make sense to the beginner. It's a set of tools, including some low level ones that only make sense to a non-newbie. Likewise, 'copy' isn't there in a generic sense (it's there for dicts, which are builtin and sport a copy method), because the pro doesn't need it that often. What does or doesn't make sense to the newbie is irrelevant. A language need not be designed based on that perspective, to be good. It's the job of teachers to smooth the on ramp, and in that regard, just don't teach all the builtins to start. Just because they're all builtins doesn't mean each must be tackled in order, one by one. The strikes me as unimaginative, plodding. Kirby -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

1 0

Re: Least used builtins?
by Arthur July 5, 2003

July 5, 2003

Lulu writes - >Yet a fourth matter is that I think it would be slightly easier to teach >Python to beginners if __builtins__ did not include a number of >functions that were extremely difficult to explain to novices... and >that are really only of use to fairly expert Pythoneers. I find that >callable, classmethod, id, intern, and a number of others fall in this >category. My thinking is that anything meant for experts should need to >get imported by specific request. Python and beginners. As usual where I feel qualified to pop-up with a position. My experience was such that, in retrospect, the only place I feel Python "betrayed" me as someone learning to program with Python and outside of a formal curricula, was in the *absence* of a built-in - "copy". To me, that absence left a conceptual hole in the core (not filled, I contend, by the availability of list[:]). I don't think it is necessary to elaborate in too much detail as to the why the issue is an issue. The full implications of moving something like copy to become a built_in is not something I pretend to have a handle on. As to the limited question, effect on learning (especially self-directed learning) - I believe I have a point. Guido's position seems to be that the presence of copy as a built-in would lead to its overuse by the newbie. My counter-position is that it necessary to understand why one is not using it, and that can only happen if one understand it exists. The thinking along the lines of a more limited set of built_ins might actually serve some resolution of the issue - at least to the extent it is an issue, beyond my own perception of the matter. That is, one will understand sooner that there is functionality conceptually "fundamental", that might not exist in __builtins__. I also happen to agree with the direct point being made. As I happen to be working on a short tutorial for an app, which assumes no prior knowledge of Python. And one the the first things I do - maybe 10 lines into the tutorial - is a dir(__builtins__) from the interactive prompt. Just to give some lay of the land. Three or four years into Python, and I do notice there are a number of items I can't explain to myself, much less to sombody else. And have gotten a fairly long way along writing acutal working apps, with the "more fundamental" subset of __builtins_ which are in common use. This whole area, I think, deserving of attention - especially as I do think something siginificant might be accomplished without really disturbing anything. And perhaps the concept of whittling down the _builtins__, makes more sense than the addition of a new built-in, as I had been advocating. And would accomplish something along the lines that my experience indicates to be advisable - i.e., with respect to "copy" Art

1 0

Learning By Breaking
by Arthur July 5, 2003

July 5, 2003

http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=5477 I happen to be a big fan of this technique. Whether I like it or not. """ Learning By Breaking by Barry Warsaw June 24, 2003 Summary One of the best ways to learn how a system works is by breaking it. """

1 0

Re: OT
by Arthur July 2, 2003

July 2, 2003

Boy, was that misdirected. Art ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arthur" <ajsiegel(a)optonline.com> To: <edu-sig(a)python.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:42 PM Subject: OT > Sorry. > > You started, by pointing here. > > At: > > http://www.geocities.com/moonhoabinh/Unrevolution.html > > there is discussion about Cabbalistic vs. rabbinatical conflict within the > Jewish tradition. > > Interesting stuff. > > The problem is, in my view, in taking sides, as it seems to me is done here. > > The Hasidic movement in Eastern Europe of the 16th century was the most > recent mass rebeliion against the rabbinical authority. And was a true burst > of creative energy. Shades of San Francisco 1960's and well beyond. > Miracles and ecstacies and beautiful stories which are handed down. > > The descendents of that movement walk around, ridiculously, IMO, in 16th > century Polish garb and represent the most repressed and repressive faction > among the many factions of Jewish life today. > > Can't say what the dynaimics are. But I do think there is a kind of > dynamics: ecstacy + time = blah, to coin a term. > > Preferably: > One's heart with the Cabbalists, and one's head with the rabbinate. > > Identifying "America" or the American way of life or Corporations with > "evil", as is done rhetorically - again and again - directly and indirectly, > has already done much to contribute to the death of innocents. And will > never contribute anything more or better than that. > > Why don't you care? > > Art >

2 1

OT
by Arthur July 1, 2003

July 1, 2003

Sorry. You started, by pointing here. At: http://www.geocities.com/moonhoabinh/Unrevolution.html there is discussion about Cabbalistic vs. rabbinatical conflict within the Jewish tradition. Interesting stuff. The problem is, in my view, in taking sides, as it seems to me is done here. The Hasidic movement in Eastern Europe of the 16th century was the most recent mass rebeliion against the rabbinical authority. And was a true burst of creative energy. Shades of San Francisco 1960's and well beyond. Miracles and ecstacies and beautiful stories which are handed down. The descendents of that movement walk around, ridiculously, IMO, in 16th century Polish garb and represent the most repressed and repressive faction among the many factions of Jewish life today. Can't say what the dynaimics are. But I do think there is a kind of dynamics: ecstacy + time = blah, to coin a term. Preferably: One's heart with the Cabbalists, and one's head with the rabbinate. Identifying "America" or the American way of life or Corporations with "evil", as is done rhetorically - again and again - directly and indirectly, has already done much to contribute to the death of innocents. And will never contribute anything more or better than that. Why don't you care? Art

1 0

re: Terminology question: just operator overriding?
by Arthur July 1, 2003

July 1, 2003

I had asked >But then, why do you raise this? Ah. OSCON, I'm thinking. Do we get a preview? Personally I feel it's not right to highlight PyGeo quite as much as you intend ;) Art

3 10