[Edu-sig] re: More spillover re the division PEP

[Arthur_Siegel@rsmi.com]

Kevin writes  - 

>I guess I saw things differently up until now. I always thought Python, by
>design, performed the conversion whenever the conversion was needed. This
>ensures that when you run an arithmetic operation, you get the result - not
>a type error or lost data. I would bet this reasoning accounts for why many
>newbies stumble on the division issue. I now realize that is not how Python
>works, but why shouldn't it work that way? I don't mean to sound as if I'm
>complaining, I would just like to know why it works the way it does.

To me this is all about the need for precision in a whole different sense - 
precision in language. 

Keep trying to ask  - what is a "newbie" and what is the "Programming"
in CP4E supposed to mean.,

"3.1.1 Numbers"  of Guido and Fred' tutorial  which ships with Python covers 
the issue of the division operator.

My recollection of my true newbie mindset - let me know clearly what the 
rules are and I will try to play by them.  That is my work - my contribution to

the 
learning effort. Certainly Guido and Fed made theirs.

The tutorial makes the rules clear.
  
Have I made typos - 3/4 when I meant 3. / 4  - yes.  Did I have any 
significant conceptual problems about what was going on. No.

It is actually the hidden bug argument that I find most compelling.  But it
has
nothing to do with newbie status.  Absolutely nothing. 

Should a language be desgined  to minimize the possiblity of a hidden 
unintended result from a missing  ".".  I guess probably it should, to the
extent possible.

Obviously this argument is most compelling where we are talking about
significant  applications.  So, by definition,  not a newbie issue.  

Should the language be designed to prevent conceptual errors by folks
who haven't made it to Chapter 3 of its introductory tutorial. For 
reasons that I can't even explain to myself, the argument that it should -
if and to the extent that argument  has been advanced in these discussions
 - makes me nuts. 

A more interesting argument is to what extent we should concern ourselves
about those with an interest in learning to program who who read Chapter 3 
carefully, and can't follow it - don't have the background to make any sense of

it.

That's certainly  worth talking about.  But first we need to have some evidence

that such 
a population exists, which we do not.  Or that, if such a population does
exist,
programming language design is a reasonable arena in which to expect to be
able to offer them help[.

ART