At 09:55 PM 9/4/2003 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I noticed this book at OSCON, and spoke briefly with Tim O'Reilly about it. He was interested in doing a Python version if a good author (or more likely a good team of authors) would present itself.
Any takers?
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
I'd like to be involved in something like this. I like the whole approach. I'd also like to see it applied in the intersection between math and computer programming, the nexus which so interests me. Here's something I just wrote to math-teach @ The Math Forum about all this: ========= Given the realities of the job market, a lot of serious-minded adults shell out of computer books designed to give them more skills. There's a lot of pressure on publishers and authors alike to find out what makes technical subjects learnable. A recent contribution to the field is 'Head First Java', which I encourage math teachers to skim, especially the first sections, which are self-consciously about pedagogy. A first impression might be that this is another "for dummies" style book, and yes, there's some overlap (and why are *those* books so successful?). But this is an O'Reilly computer title, and the humor is in my opinion of higher caliber than the "or dummies" or "for complete idiot" series. The important thing is that the authors are making some claims about what helps people learn, and then following their own advice, demonstrating what they consider to be an effective way of imparting technical content. It's all about tricking your brain in to *caring* -- or so the authors argue. The brain is designed to filter out the low stim unimportant stuff, say the authors. It's a survival machine and evolved though eons of flight or fight in jungles and such. By keeping the trivia out, it makes sure the important stuff (like lurking wild animals) stay front and center. But our problem is we *need* to learn Java (just as our ancestors *needed* to learn how to keep out of a tiger's way). So we have to meet the brain half way and give it more of the stimulation it expects when things are important. More stim. More of that sticky stuff that'll help wire it all in. More graphics, more associations. The claim is that these techniques are in fact research based. The result reminds me a lot of 'Who is Fourier?', a book designed to impart the ins and outs of Fourier analysis to lay persons, using the techniques pioneered by a certain language institute to teach regular human languages (like French and Korean). That the human language teachers and computer language teachers would come to similar conclusions, regarding what works, is not entirely surprising. I encourage math teachers to look at 'Who is Fourier?' as well, preferably in conjunction with 'Head First Java'. Kirby