At 01:09 PM 7/9/2003 -0400, you wrote:
As sometimes happens, I can not follow why you are not following what I think is a clear argument.
I didn't know what you meant about the Scheme people showing restraint nor what you meant by "hating to 'go back to Russia'".
You can define "programming" anyway you want,I guess. And you can certainly reasonably argue that something *about* programming sensibly belongs in a curriculum.
And 'about' isn't good enough -- should involve some hands-on experience.
Just be sensitive to the fact that others may be using that exact same word to mean something quite else: a rigorous approach to a rigorous discipline. Applied mathematics of an advanced nature. Naked, as such.
Not mutually exclusive. My analogy was with slapping clay around in art class -- but with examples of great masterworks available. It's not like I'm saying we should forget about the hallmarks of quality work. But there's no point just being intimidating. The first step is to make it fun and accessible. Then we can start showing examples of how *not* to code (but give examples of the right way first).
We both teach "programming". But they just make it seem so hard. We give easy A's over here.
Who are "they"? The Scheme people?
That's one way to fill up a class.
Art
Please understand I am not being critical of anything you are saying, other than to suggest - lets talk about apples when we are talking apples, and oranges when meaning oranges.
I guess the differences needn't hinge on how we define programming. Let's talk instead about what the *goal* of writing a program might be, in specific cases. If it's to write something robust and maintainable, and to send it out into the world, that's one thing. If it's to quickly throw something together for private use, in order to gain understanding of a concept (perhaps not specific to programming), that's something else. Both are valid goals, and I can easily think of many others, just as I'm sure you can.
And bend, especially, over backward to do so, when it is to some tactical advantage to do otherwise.
I think the Open Source ethic holds us to high standards - or should - in respect to these kinds of things.
Art
Yes, Open Source by its nature promotes better coding, because you know that others will be studying your source, not just the outward runtime interface (which might look pretty, but be junk underneath -- a fact not easily hidden if the source is in plain view). Open source ethics make it harder to BS. As someone was pointing out this evening at OSCON, it's a different kind of job interview when you can say "just look at my source code, if you want to know what I'm capable of". And the interviewer can ask if you have check-in privileges on CVS (if you claim to be deeply involved in some group coding effort). Kirby