John Zelle wrote: >>It is modest. It is unconnected with Revelation, New Ages, and Second >>Comings. It brings us to no new dimensions. It actually brings no new >>great amount of stature to the geeks of the world, or to the software >>industry. >> >>It must be on the right track. >> >> > >And I can't see how any reasonable person could be against that, which I why I >thought you were saying something else ;-). By all means, let's agree that >teaching some programming as part of math is a sensible enterprise. But >that's not happening at the moment, at least not around here. >
In this incedible din, we can locate something that all reasonable people can agree about, and which is not being done - around here either. Ok. What's the plan? Who begins to take responsibility? > I don't see >this as a reason to denigrate the computer scientists who are trying to >teach "intro to programming" courses as another entry point into this >important mathematical domain. > I assure you I was trying to do no such thing.. I in fact am simply listening, and feeling that talents are being wasted, that college professors of CS should not be burderened with what would be sensibly thought of - in other fields - as remedial work. >Let me add just one more thought before signing off on this thread >permanently. This undercurrent of "introduction to programming" as somehow >being a poor way to teach programming is still bothering me. > I said that, yes. But not, I think, in the way that you heard it. I think, again, that the introduction to programming at a college level should be an introduction to programming, not remedial mathematics. Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
