> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Toby Donaldson > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:37 PM > To: edu-sig@python.org > Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] Python for CS101 >
> I've spoken to a few teachers at a school that tried the Scheme-first > approach, and the students generally *hated* it. I've talked to students > who > took a CS2 data structures and algorithms course in LISP, and they claimed > to *hate* the course --- while at the same time saying "LISP was lots of > fun!". If I cam be considered a market survey of one - the LISP alternative, not before mentioned - does have some life to it. Ordered and just received "Practical Common Lisp", which other than some database books I needed for reference on work projects, is the first non-Python programming book I have bought in some time. It's the first affirmative move I have made toward supplementing what I have learned about programming from Python by exploring outside of Python, and comes after some period of sniffing around all the likely alternatives, from C++, to Ocaml, to Scheme, etc. Peter Seibel, the author of "Practical Common Lisp", somewhat laments the fact that the exposure of many to LISP is through Scheme. "If you studied LISP is college and came away with the impression that it was only an academic language with no real-world application, chances are you learned Scheme." He adds: "This isn't to say that's a particularly fair characterization of Scheme, but it's even less applicable to Common LISP". For my taste, the book goes a little too far out of its way to make its point that LISP is a practical programming language - its example programs being Web Programming, the ID3 Parser, the HTML generator, etc. But I decided to suck it up and see what I could get out of it. On the particular score of programming interests I have already been forced to learn to get along - as someone with almost no interest in web-based programming, most programming related forums today do not seem quite "for me". So I have lowered expectations on that score. And in some sense I am practicing what I preach - i.e. advocating the introduction of Python through math and science related subjects, knowing that is not necessarily where a students core programming interests might lie. Python is well-established, I think, as a "practical" programming language. And can and should take advantage of that - in a non-obvious way, perhaps. With nothing in particular to need to prove on that score, its seems to me that in an academic setting, it can and should allow itself to be introduced with examples and subject matter of direct academic relevance. Thereby providing the side effect of getting to the academic worth of programming - that is for practical academics. One might allow "academic" as a dirty word from outside the academy. It's hard for me to understand how it can be allowed to be so from within it. But I have made tried to make this point about 700 times before, and have given some pledge to try to stop repeating myself... Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
