Scott David Daniels wrote: >I would say that writing computer programs without an understanding of >computer science is certainly possible (and I've worked with lots of >people who do so), but to write well, and to write are not the same >skill at all. > Let me sign on to your point of view. I am writing for other human beings.
But which other human beings? A little ditty I had written here was judged harshly (and incorrectly, I believe), because it spoke in a vocabulary of finance - to programmers. Can someone whose first identity is as a programmer judge the writing of someone whose is not. Back to where I started to get testy: properties and decorators I honestly believe that if I had seen them in my first Python Triangle class I would have judged myself to be looking at a language that might be swell - for somebody else. But a little too magical, self-referential and self-involved - for my own taste. And would have moved on. Which might have saved the Python community from the annoyances of one annoying guy. But I can imagine someone with my sensibilities - just a lot less annoying - having moved on, and think that would have been a shame. Is that really how we do a Triangle in Python today? Can we accept the less sophisticated appraoches on equal footing? Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig