On 7-Sep-06, at 1:54 AM, Lloyd Hugh Allen wrote: > How about > > from __past__ import raw_input
+1 ROTFL %-) --Dethe > > ? Especially as a line that can be included in the IDLE initialization > for your students? > > On 9/6/06, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've been watching this discussion and wondering - how much of the >> problems >> people complain about would go away if here was a "teaching" >> distribution of >> python. That is one that did the equivalent of >> >> from teaching import * >> >> to put things in the global namespace at start time. Generally >> this wouldn't >> be wanted, but would be useful for putting back the things which >> people are >> worried about losing. >> >> ie something akin to: >> ~/Local> python -i mymods.py >>>>> myinput >> <built-in function raw_input> >>>>> >> >> ~/Local> cat mymods.py >> #!/usr/bin/python >> >> myinput = raw_input >> ~/Local> >> >> That way you'd get the same default "experience" for beginners >> (and I think >> this is vitally important myself "raw_input" and "print" are >> *absolutely* >> *without a shadow of a doubt* *must haves* inside the default >> namespace for a >> user (however this is implemented - preferably inside an >> overrideable library >> rather than as language keywords). >> >> Byt that's my tuppence worth. Given we could fake the existance of >> raw_input >> today, how useful would a teaching mode be? >> >> (think bicycle stabilisers for an analogy as to when they come off) >> >> >> >> Michael >> >> On Wednesday 06 September 2006 22:51, John Zelle wrote: >>> On Wednesday 06 September 2006 1:24 pm, Arthur wrote: >>>> John Zelle wrote: >>>>> I have no idea what you mean here. Speaking only for myself, I >>>>> am simply >>>>> stating that a language that requires me to use an extended >>>>> library to >>>>> do simple input is less useful as a teaching tool than one that >>>>> does >>>>> not. I also gave arguments for why, as a programmer, I find it >>>>> less >>>>> useful. You have not addressed those arguments. >>>> >>>> /I think I have. >>>> >>>> In the decorator discussion on python-list I became the self- >>>> appointed >>>> founder and chairman of the CLA - Chicken Little Anonymous. >>>> Which was >>>> some self-deprecation in connection with my role in the int/int and >>>> case-sensitivity ddiscussions. And allowing me some freedom to >>>> adamantly voice my opinions on the introduction of decorators - >>>> I was >>>> adamantly against - while letting it be known that I thought Python >>>> would well survive the outcome, whatever it ended up being. >>>> >>>> My opinion here is that you are probably right in some senses, >>>> probably >>>> wrong in others - and that Python will be not be *significantly* >>>> less >>>> useful for pedagogical purposes, whatever the outcome of the issue. >>>> >>>> So I choose to speak to the tone of the discussions as more to the >>>> substance of the issue, than is the substance of the tissue >>>> itself. And >>>> as the more important issue. >>> >>> Fair enough. But I still think you are having a hasty reaction >>> here. This >>> discussion (as I have read it) has not been about making Python or >>> programming easy. It's been about what makes Python useful both for >>> programmers and for the education of new programmers. Please see >>> the actual >>> arguments made in this thread. Sometimes I think you >>> dismiss opinions based on pedagogical foundations a bit too >>> quickly and >>> off-handedly. In my experience, a good language for teaching is a >>> good >>> language, period. A barrier for pedagogy is very often a barrier to >>> natural/useful conceptualizations, and that speaks to language >>> design for >>> all users. >>> >>> People often say that Pascal was designed as a "teaching >>> language." I >>> remember a written interview with Nicklaus Wirth where he was >>> asked what >>> makes Pascal a good teaching language, and his reponse, as I >>> remember it, >>> was something like: Pascal is not a teaching language and was never >>> intended to be; it was designed to be a good programming >>> language. The >>> features of its design that make it a good programming language >>> are what >>> make it a good teaching languge. >>> >>> I believe that a good language is one that provides a natural way to >>> express algorithms as we think about them. Python is one of the >>> very best I >>> have found for that. I believe (for reasons already stated) it is >>> less good >>> without raw_input and input. That is and was the "tone" of the >>> discussion, >>> so I'm finding it hard to figure out what you take exception to. >>> >>> --John >> _______________________________________________ >> Edu-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig >> > _______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig When laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws. _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
