Chuck Allison wrote: >Hello Arthur, > >Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 6:47:24 AM, you wrote: > >A> If in talking about programming and children we can only be realistically >A> talking about a small subset, we cannot really be talking about Python as it >A> is. > >A> Isn't talking about Python as it is more on-topic. This isn't a list about >A> a subset of Python, after all. > >I don't think so. The way we humans learn incrementally, I think we >all learn a subset first. Besides, practically no one knows everything >- we all live in a subset. This is especially true of C++, for >example. When we teach, we naturally start small and expand the >"subset" according to the sequence we feel is most "natural". This is >an important key to teaching and learning. Hence, we are always >learning. We can be very productive knowing a subset of anything, but >we do well if we continue learning. If only perfect programmers were >allowed to program, nothing would ever get done (and there would be no >programmers). > > > Just fighting an old battle - feeling that Python and "kids" (however that word might be reasonably defined) gets disportionate attention on edu-sig relative to its actual significance in the framework of Python and education, as I happen to (I think reasonably) conceive of it.
It's a battle I would be more than happy to lose - but only in the field, not in the saying. Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
