[Edu-sig] Re: Alice (was re: Question about a programming system.)

[Arthur_Siegel@rsmi.com]

"Stephen R. Figgins" <fig@monitor.net> on 01/05/2001 07:05:52 PM

>>You have more of a specific objection to this project.  You consider
>>it opportunistic and bad science.

Keyword - "opportunistic"

>>I actually didn't get the impression that it was meant to be science at 
>>all 

I'm disarmed again.  I can't argue against Alice as science because its
not supposed to be science.  I can't argue against it as relevent to education
because its not supposed to be relevant to education.  I can't argue against
it
as relevant to teaching programming because of course that was never its
intent.

And the unavoidable truth is that my issue is with owner@edu-sig  - who keeps 
citing its significance while
being unwilling to engage on the topic.

Did I make up the fact he cited the Alice "studies" as a key factor in a 
decision whether to case insensitize Python, 
nearly turning the world on its head.

Did I make up the fact that his Linux Journal article on CP4E never mentioned 
Python, but was all about some abstract
conception of human/computer interface. We are not  being honest if we don't 
see the Alice in it.

So either I'm blowing smoke at straw horses in which case I'm happy to shut-up,

or I'm taking a 
stand on something that is of  clear significance to the business of 
Python/CP4E  - in which case 
I am happy to continue the discussion.