On 13-Sep-05, at 7:22 PM, Arthur wrote:
> My argument though is with you, not Guido. It is about use cases for
> existing features, not about the features themselves. And in the
> particular case of properties, it was only in going back to Guido's
> own
> use case illustration that I begin to
Arthur,
You may be happy to know that hard-core computer scientists cannot
agree on the benefits of abstractions such as decorators.
Paul Graham attributes power and elegance to the tersest languages[1]
[2], claiming that fewer lines of code means fewer bug, less time
writing the code, and
Scott David Daniels wrote:
>I understand that properties and decorators look like obscure magic.
>I ask you to suspend judgment on those (an act of faith), until you
>understand why such features seriously assist the readability of code
>and designs. This act of faith can be based on a respect fo
Arthur wrote:
> 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,
>
I'd be happy if anyone wants to comment on and/or mess with the code below.
It's what I'm working on for my upcoming Saturday Academy class, which uses
a combination of Python and POV-Ray to teach geometry.
http://www.saturdayacademy.org/classes/ClassDetail.aspx?id=6938
Some of my background info
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
Scott David Daniels wrote:
>Arthur wrote:
>
>>
>>
I am not convinced "programming" as a stand-alone subject cannot be optimum
as an approach.
>Could you restate this?
>
>
The art is in the clear expression of a solution to a problem..
"""
and
"""
but the ar
Arthur wrote:
> Scott David Daniels wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>I think teaching programming outside a context - as an abstract
>>>discipline - is unavoidably problematic in this regard.
>>
>>I would have more sympathy if you would subscribe to the same philosophy
>>for "geometry" and "
