[Edu-sig] PySqueak: more on the cultural divide among paradigms

[Dethe Elza]

On 5/5/06, kirby urner <kirby.urner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Paul D. Fernhout <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>
> > compromises with. Will PySqueak be a compromise or an innovation (or
> > both)? It remains to be seen.
> >
> > Trying to keep this short, but failing. :-)
> >
> > --Paul Fernhout
>
> I think we may be on different planets but I'm not sure.  :-D
>
> As I understand it, PySqueak is not about changing existing Python
> syntax.  Python syntax is controlled by Guido working with pydev
> people, and is moving towards Python 3000, so-called.  The changes are
> incremental and have nothing much to do with the PySqueak effort.
>
> The PySqueak effort (badly named?) is more like the VPython effort.
> Its aim is to give us a sophisticated back end graphics engine to dink
> around with.

Would a VPython implemented on top of PyOpenGL be useful?  Right now
VPython lives in its own world and doesn't play nice with native
windows, or PyGame, or OpenGL, or X3D, or OS X, or...  The argument
for making writing it the way they have it to get the performance
necessary for physics demos.  Meanwhile, Python has gotten faster,
machines have gotten *much* faster, and PyOpenGL is getting faster by
moving to a ctypes-based implementation.

Would a pythonic 3D API, a la VPython, that plays well with others be
a valuable component for the Squeakification of Python?  Or are we
talking apples and oranges (pythons and rubies)?

> Given this engine, Python developers might write apps friendlier to
> young children, using animation and almost-no-typing-needed
> interfaces.  We could compete with the newer Logos, which leave the
> older ones in the dust, visually speaking.

How intricate an engine are you thinking?  VPython is still fairly
primitive in its primitives, but a more open version might be
extensible to read data from X3D, 2nd Life, SketchUp, AvMotion
(character animation), etc.

> The very same engine would have lots of applications in an adult
> context as well.

I know I'd love to have a 3D environment that was both easy to use,
and extensible.

> This is NOT about Python changing significantly as a language, moving
> to some new paradigm or yadda yadda.
>
> In my view, Python is a mature language undergoing consolidation, is
> not on the brink of some major overhaul.
>
> True, it's being reimplemented in C# for some platforms, as it was in
> Java (with Jim's leadership in both cases).
>
> The new graphics engine I envision might well be an outgrowth of that
> Mono/.NET effort.  Only time will tell.
>
> In the meantime, we already have working, Ubuntu-compatible versions
> of Logo, Squeak and Python.
>
> My info is the Shuttleworth Foundation is in no way holding its breath
> waiting for these newer tools to come over the horizon, exciting
> though these may be.
>
> In terms of going ahead with implementation, we already have
> sufficient toyz.  Curriculum writing is proceeding apace on that
> basis.

But Guido has committed that a Squeak-like GUI platform would be
welcome.  So we are talking about extending the libraries to be more
encompassing.  I agree about not extending the syntax (any more than
is already happening for Python 3000).

--Dethe

>
> Kirby