[Edu-sig] The fate of raw_input() in Python 3000
ajsiegel at optonline.net
Fri Sep 15 15:36:20 CEST 2006
kirby urner wrote:
> Just keeping stuff the same is comfortable and comforting. All you
> need for a conspiracy is a shared tacit investment in "not rocking the
> boat". Nothing deeply sinister. But the consequences may be
> nevertheless ugly.
Somehow can't let this go.
I keep thinking that your analysis here is confounded with your
Fullerism, which is why I come at it a bit and try to encourage
you to separate it from your interest in programming/math
synergies. Not asking or expecting you to compromise your Fuller
crusade. Just separate the crusades a bit. The fact is, despite how I
might sound, my general associations with Fuller are positive - as a
freewheeling intelligence, as an "adventurous explorer". Caution to the
wind. But if we take someone like Kay - who I think I can see more
clearly - as a similar spirit, I think we tend to get some who, out of
lack of caution , will be the most right in some cases, the most
wrong in others.
Like you and like I, on edu-sig.
Separate the fact that Fuller has not gotten the recognition you feel he
has earned within the academic community, and I think your analysis
would be different.
I'm all for conspiracy theories. There is little else to fall back on
when one feels that things have gone terribly wrong. We seem to share
some feelings that things have.
I guess I fall back on the simplest possibility - follow the money.
The possibility that the Python prompt might be the kind of tool most
effective in an educational setting is a tremendous threat. It's not
only the fact that it is free, it is the fact that is not even software
in the sense that the software industry wants us to believe is necessary
for this kind of assignment. The are many billions of dollars at
stake. Much else follows from there.
It is for others to decide whether my incautious statements along these
lines might have some ring of truth.
More information about the Edu-sig