John Zelle wrote: >So yes, we want our >students to be reading cade, especially good code > How good?
Another subtle problem. One of my difficulties in becoming self-taught fluent in certain mathematical ideas: Educators don't want to communicate something irresponsible in connection with the concept of rigor, in a field where rigor is to the essence of things. While at the same time the rigorous statement of things can the impede the possibility of penetration, where a more approximate presentation might be more to the pedagogical point. What I have found that going to the source is often the best approach (though often not). Felix Klein types often seem more comfortable with a more casual and relaxed presentation of their ideas, to a non-peer audience, than do those charged with presenting Klein's ideas to others. The educators seem to feel - the instinct is good enough - more obligated to present Klein's ideas carefully, and therefore rigorously. And seem to feel that only Klein himself has the right to let himself off that hook. Its almost a form of professional etiquette, it seems. "Klein" meant here as a more general concept. Fuller had the solution . Make believe the ideas were his, thereby giving himself leave to present them anyway he chose .But that is a concept hard to roll out. ;). Teasing, Kirby. Art >, but I also want my >students to be writing programs, lots and lots of programs. It's hard to >appreciate what makes code good until you've written some bad stuff yourself. > >--John > >On Wednesday 13 September 2006 7:18 am, Arthur wrote: > > >>Peter Bowyer wrote: >> >> >>>At 11:47 13/09/2006, Arthur wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I can imagine an introductory course that was in fact more a >>>>*reading* course than a writing course - that spent a good deal of >>>>its time analyzing the code of relatively straightforward, but >>>>interesting, working applications. The satellite view, before we >>>>attempt to descend to a finer resolution. >>>> >>>> >>>That's a lot like how I learned to program. I bought a book >>>(Professional PHP - nothing like an intro book!) and once I'd read >>>some basics I went in and wrote a proper application - an ecard >>>script, following the outline of Perl code that I'd read previously >>>(without being able to write). That way I learned from someone else >>>(apprenticeship) and wrote something that was *useful* when finished >>>(encouraging me to learn). >>> >>> >>Myself as well. My first "major" Python project was simply a port of >>some Java code to Python - a 3d math library. Read/write - read the >>Java, write the Python. But in the end I had something actually useful, >>to an extent I could not possibly have accomplished at that point on a >>write/write basis. >> >>All this of course makes Open Source of central importance. It happens >>that the 3d Java library I wanted to port was not open - nice API docs, >>no source. Luckily someone in Japan had taken upon themselves to do a >>functionally equivalent Open Source version of the library, .i.e. >>creating functional source working backward from the API. >> >>As it happens, on a *read* basis, about the first thing one can expect >>to encounter and need to explain (maybe after the doc string) is the >>"import" statement. To me this feels exactly right. OTOH, a recent >>post on the Python3000 list - discussing the fate of raw_input() - >>re-iterates the position that an understanding of the import statement >>is something that belongs way, way down the road - in a way that was >>much to sure of itself, for my taste. >> >>That one point - where the "import" statement belongs, pedagogically - >>seems to in some way represent the quake line of different points of >>view. Bucky might recognize this fact as a symptom of a pre-synergistic >>stage of things. But one side or the other always needs to lose some >>surety in order to make a first move in the direction of synergy.. >> >>You first ... whoever you is ;) >> >>Art >> >> >> >>>When studying physics I found the same approach worked, taking a >>>real-world application generated enthusiasm for learning esoteric >>>subjects. If you enjoy learning for the sake of knowledge I guess >>>this approach isn't needed; otherwise I believe it to be the most >>>effective approach. >>> >>>Peter >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Edu-sig mailing list >>Edu-sig@python.org >>http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig