[Edu-sig] Stop the insanity: no more meta-discussion (was: "Killer Apps" vs. CP4E)

David Scherer dscherer@evergames.kssacct.com
Fri, 03 Mar 2000 19:20:41 -0500


Kirby,

> To this end, even the best application/simulation/killer 
> app ever conceived, for teaching geometry or physics or 
> whatever, might be completely irrelevant from the standpoint 
> of opening up the world of programming to a wider audience 
> -- because the code is hard, difficult to comprehend
> (doesn't mean inelegant, just means "done by a pro" (or 
> by a hacker -- sometimes it's a very fine line...)).

You are focusing on a particular method of teaching: a kind of "top down"
self-motivated analysis approach, in which students originally work with the
top level of a system, but as they grow can "open up the hood" one layer at
a time to look at the implementation.

This is a powerful idea.  However, there's always some point at which things
become opaque.  An example is the Python language itself.  The
implementation of Python and its libraries is many tens of thousands of
lines of C code "done by a pro", and probably doesn't have much pedagogical
value to the novice.  However, the interface of that code (Python) is very
relevant to CP4E.  The POVRAY application you are using is another example -
it's interface defines the minimum level of abstraction your students are
able to see.  In fact, no matter how expert a programmer you are, you are
almost certainly using some tools that you don't know very much about the
implementation of (Did you write your own optimizing C++ compiler?  Virtual
memory system?  Video card firmware?)

I think that all of the projects which are being discussed on this SIG are
relevant, because they are all designed to provide pedagogically useful
programming *interfaces*.  They don't have to be useful example code to
contribute to CP4E; they just need to provide some service relevant to
teaching programming and other subjects using Python.

Also, keep in mind that Guido created the edu-sig to discuss all kinds of
applications of Python in education, not *only* CP4E.  It says so quite
clearly on the SIG homepage.

> To this end, I think Python is already adequate as is (as 
> I've been saying from the beginning), and no additional apps 
> are essential to furthering these goals.  

If the presently available tools are adequate for *your* needs, that's
great!  No one has complained about you using this forum to discuss your
work.  However, other people might have different needs.  It's not clear to
me why they shouldn't use this forum to discuss them.

> Seems to me that most of the relevant barriers to CP4E are 
> political and administrative.  The technology is not the 
> problem.  The problem is a creaky, obsolete, boring, 
> unimaginative curricula.  

As it happens, I agree.  However, I have neither skill nor leverage to
attack that aspect of the problem.  If you do, why not respond to Randy
Latimer's post, instead of complaining about progress in other directions?

Dave