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 mathematics. As
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 art lies not only in a perfected
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
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
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,
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 for
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,
