Hi Titus and All,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 04:57:52AM -0800, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:34:09AM +, Jan T Kim wrote:
> > When using the "top down" approach of starting with a prepared piece of
> > working code, I'd suggest that learners should be made aware that code
> >
I think almost all code that is interesting is, in some sense, derived
from both existing code and written code, so maybe we should rephrase
the discussion?
Perhaps something like, "We need to encourage participants to learn
how to dissect existing code and understand how it is constructed and
why
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:34:09AM +, Jan T Kim wrote:
> When using the "top down" approach of starting with a prepared piece of
> working code, I'd suggest that learners should be made aware that code
> is normally developed from scratch, rather than by modifying existing code,
> and encourage
Gerard,
It may be that it is easier for instructors to be enthusiastic about
one kind or another? If that is true, then lesson structure is a tool
that can be used to create material about which more or different
instructors can be enthusiastic; and that is a worthy goal, no?
-- bennet
On Mon,
Dear Somon, Gerard and All,
perhaps orthogonal to Simon's first time programmers vs. familiar with
another language observation, in my experience there's a trade-off between
getting something "interersting" quickly vs. learning how to build something
usable and reliably. The half-day format of the
This sounds very much like the discussion of whole-language vs phonetics
approach to teaching children to read, which forms part of the instructor
training. The summary for that example is that it doesn't matter - you just
need to be enthusiastic.
On 13/11/16 12:48, Waldman, Simon wrote:
Again
