[Edu-sig] Re: easy for beginners, even children

[Daniel Ajoy]

Lee Harr wrote:

> >In Python:
> >
> >>>>2 = 3
> >SyntaxError: can't assign to literal
> 
> I would say ...
> set 2 equal to 3.
> 
> Doesn't make much sense, so that's an error.

It makes sense if the student wanted the computer
to answer if 2 is equal to 3.


> 2 == 3
> False
> 
> would be ...
> is 2 equal to 3?

But I don't get a "False". I get:

>>> 2 == 3
0

Anyway. I'm not saying Python is a bag language because of
these tiny difficulties. Just that they are there. Logo
has many others, tiny and big.


On 12 Apr 2004 at 12:19, Danny Yoo wrote:

> I'd highly recommend looking into
> http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCSpy/ if you haven't already.

Interesting:
http://ibiblio.org/obp/thinkCS/logo.php

;)



Christopher A. Craig wrote:

> I would branch out were I you.  Those three languages have 
> something in common, they're all special purpose.  While 
> I'd prefer awk to anything else for some applications, it's 
> not real useful in about 99.9% of situations, 

Strange, I use awk or logo for about 99% of my situations. For
the rest I use command line executables and piping.

> Also, if you're already had some exposure with Logo, an 
> alternative route to learning how to program may be through 
> the Scheme route, since Logo is Lispish at a fundamental 
> level.

I know how to program... in Logo (and awk, and bash) for the 
kind of things I do. I don't need much more. There are programs
big and small, I guess I do the small ones, the quick hacks,
the ones that don't need databases (And if once I needed to extract
data from and Access database I used a command-line executable
that connected through ODCB to the DB and returned a txt files of 
the query results) I do my graphics with Logo or with some 
command-line executable.


David H. wrote:

> It was valuable feedback that he said Python seems "something too big too
> learn now". 
> 
> I think that there is a core of essential Python features that are easy to
> learn and can be used to construct fun games and programs quickly. That
> core is what I focus on in the book I'm writing. I think that the core of
> Python is easier to learn than awk or bash, and at least as easy as logo.
> But that's *my* opinion, and my opinion is not important. It's the
> beginner's opinion that matters.
> 
> Daniel, would you care to share with us what makes it seem like a big 
> project to learn Python? I am interested from the standpoint of making my 
> book better for beginners.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> David H.

I think it has more to do with my personality: I like to travel light and
carry with me only small but powerful tools, not big and do-it-all tools.

These are a couple of things that make me think Python might be something 
too big for me:

* How many IDEs does it have?

* lambda expressions vs list comprehensions vs regular loops 

* There is a new thing now, I don't remember the name (continuations?)

* Does it have a distinction between symbols and strings?

* How big is the installer now (10MB?)

* the lib directory has 318 files


Gregor Lingl wrote:

> Having taught Logo for years I now prefer to use Python as a
> teaching language and - indeed  - I think that it easier to
> understand and to use (by the students) as soon as problems (tasks)
> to be solved get a bit more advanced. 

I do think Python has a nicer syntax than Logo.

What kind of more advanced tasks?

> (I think this is because then
> the Logo syntax becomes a bit clumsy and using lists as
> the *only* compound data type is a severe restriction ... (compared
> to using dictionaries and user-defined objects)
> Shortly: Python is definitely much more "very high level" ...

Brian's books use UCBLogo, and UCBLogo has arrays and 
"global and named" dictionaries, also known in Logo as 
property lists. But I agree that Python has more 
useful compound data types.


Daniel