Strengths and weaknesses of Pygame vs. pyglet vs. PyOpenGL?
renesd at gmail.com
Mon Dec 8 11:19:32 CET 2008
On Dec 8, 8:59 pm, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 7:18 pm, illume <ren... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's easier to teach only requiring *using* classes, and functions
> > than *creating* them. This is important if it's being used to teach
> > programming - as you don't need to teach people two fairly large
> > concepts before you can do anything.
> I'm just kind of aghast at the idea of "teaching" anyone how to
> program games by using large, imperative chunks of code. I don't see
> functions as being a "fairly large concept" at all, and utterly vital
> to being able to write anything but the most basic 'hello world'
> example code.
Yes, teaching hello world without requiring the creation classes is a
*good thing*. Imagine having to create classes to make a hello world
program? You'd have a typical java hello world program. This means
you need to explain the concept of OO before they can do hello world.
It's about teaching concepts separately, rather than requiring them to
be taught all at once. If you don't need to use something, then why
bother using it? Just for purity? Python has a long history of not
making everything classes.
So I see requiring the creation of classes to do 'hello world' as
being un-pythonic and overly complex. I also see it getting in the
way of seeing results, which is important when intially learning
> > Also python has very slow function calls, so avoiding using callbacks
> > is also faster.
> Wouldn't it be better to teach people the basics of coding -before-
> setting out to optimise their code?
I was explaing the advantages of avoiding callbacks, and avoiding
requiring the creation of classes. I think it's simpler, and faster
to avoid callbacks. I was not saying that it's better to optimize
peoples code before teaching people the basics of programming.
More information about the Python-list