On 3/10/06, Arthur <ajsiegel@optonline.net> wrote:

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: edu-sig-bounces@python.org
> >[mailto:edu-sig-bounces@python.org ] On Behalf Of kirby urner
> >
> >OK, Teds Ocean comes up, I beckon my wife, and she comes
> >over to watch.  "What about the car?"  That's what Tara's
> >been up to, programming a car (one of the eToys exercises).
> >We check another canned example:  Stair.

Girl. Car.  ??

Probably more fuel efficient, or something, than the kind of car a *boy*
might be interested in ;)

As the only girl in  shop class and electronics class etc, I would have *loved* to have a chance to build and program cars back then. My daughter does it now in school (Lego Mindstorms) and has a blast. Some of us, sometimes, just like to tinker. It's nice to see other girls out there with the same interests...

> >
> >Quite fun then, not just an applet as plugin, but I guess
> >the whole Squeak development environment, which is the 6.5
> >meg I downloaded.

I think you owe it to yourself, and perhaps to us, to understand  and
express why Squeak does not represent the perfect environment for pursuing
the kind of educational ideas that you tend to express. If it in fact does

My own concerns start exactly there - with the word "environment".

My understanding is that many conclude that too much "environment" is what
doomed Smalltalk to a  minor role in today's software world.

And respect for children starts, I think, with not considering them any
different from oneself on these kinds of issues.  I am actually very
disappointed that - according to what you are saying - Canonical sees Squeak
as having a central role to play in education for children.

Python is glue, a citizen of the larger software world, and proficiency in
it helps make one a better, more productive and potentially creative citizen
of the world. Squeak is too much its own world.  If Canonical mission is to
educate better world citizens, I think it is going off in the wrong
direction here.

Great point, Art.