re AMTE thread re DrScheme & Python

[Tim Peters]

[posted and mailed]

[Kirby Urner]
> For more context re the below, see the archived thread
> (on-going) at the Math Forum.  This is from an
> Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators
> listserv:
>
>    http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/amte/snuquoiyor

The quoted article is the first of the "1 Feb 2000" entries.  You cut some
of the more appealing inducements to rational discussion, like:

    The people we talked to (including Guido) could not state
    or formulate program design recipes.

and

    It wasn't clear whether they had even realized that their language
    was quasi-functional.

and

    The proper response to this table is that we don't play such
    shameless, back-stabbing games.

> If people posting here have the time to read what
> Matthias says about Python... e.g.:
>
>>   As far as the language is concerned, Python is a
>>     - highly irregular,
>>     - badly implemented
>>     - non-parethetical version of (Mz)Scheme
>>     - without underlying theory of programming
>>       language design
>>     - or program development
>>     - with a cult-like following.

> I'd be happy to read their feedback.

Well, I think the tone of this "candid assessment", speaks for itself, and
it's not something I care to get dragged into.

One thing may make things clearer, though:  Guido Himself has described
Python as a "95% language".  It doesn't aim-- and deliberately not --at
impeccable theoretical purity or completeness.  It's much more pragmatic in
spirit. "It works"!

Scheme is an excellent first language, and I've got nothing at all bad to
say about DrScheme (except perhaps that it sure puts a heck of a lot more
strain on my old machine than does Python <0.5 wink>).  It would be hard to
regret teaching Scheme.  It would also be hard to regret teaching Python.

I personally would incline to teach Scheme to potential computer scientists,
and Python to everyone else.  The core concepts of computer science are much
more carefully developed in Scheme (it's a diamond!); the rough and tumble
*practice* of day to day programming (mixing GUIs with CGI and database
access and ...) is much more faithfully reflected in Python (it's a lump of
coal -- maybe not as pretty to look at, but when you light it, it *glows*).

There's no question but that Scheme currently overwhelms Python in the
matter of good course materials available.

try-'em-both!-ly y'rs  - tim


PS:

> So maybe it's time for chapter eight, using DrScheme, about
> hich I have an open mind (although I must say I'm rather put
> off by what looks to be a rather defensive and "cult like"
> mentality surrounding the DrScheme project :-D).

I'd just like to add the the Lisp community (of which Scheme is a part) has
likely done as much pioneering work in computer languages as all others put
together, and they're definitely not happy about the lack of appreciation
(not even simple acknowledgement) they usually get for that.  Defensiveness
is not uncommon here, nor is it mysterious.  It's not necessary (or
helpful), though -- Guido wasn't trying to destroy other languages with his
CP4E proposal, he's just trying to pursue his own vision of how life could
be better.  "The table" is an honest reflection of his (highly compressed)
conclusions.