Kelleher and Pausch's ACM Computing Surveys 37(2) paper. Well, I took my time getting through the paper, and like the rest of you here was left dissatisfied. The first problem I have with the paper is is that, while there is a large body of work that it covers, I am unable to discern a desiderata for whether any particular work will be included. I certainly see Python as one (very successful) attempt to address the "Lowering the Barriers." Not seeing any criteria for inclusion or exclusion leaves me feeling that this paper is about "a bunch of stuff I read."
Clearly there has been a lot of effort here in analyzing the subject systems; simply thoroughly reading the system descriptions would be exhausting. The paper though, leaves me with the impression, "I read a bunch of stuff, and this is kinda-sorta how I see the stuff I read can be classified." A survey like this should either start with a taxonomy and show how efforts fall into this taxonomy. Such a paper is about the taxonomy, and should concentrate on how well the taxonomy works. On the other hand, the paper could describe a way of accumulating research, and then produce a taxonomy from observation on the accumulation. Neither seems to be the case here. A kvetch: the SP/k claims PL/1 evaluates 25 + 1/3 as 5.33333. How could this be true? When stating a possibly surprising fact, proofreading is indicated. Why is COBOL in there? If it is, FORTRAN and ALGOL certainly belong, and wherever those three belong is where Python belongs. I suspect that Turing is in this group, and I don't know that Turing was a "stripped down for teaching" language. Claiming that BASIC's "LET" statement is somehow simplifying the language for the student does not convince me; I think LET simplifies the interpreter, not the student's task, As to the chosen hierarchy, the top-level distinction confuses me: Systems to teach programming for its own sake vs. Systems to teach programming in pursuit of another goal To which class do systems to teach programming in order to teach Computer Science belong? Determining the "primary aspect of programming that the system attempts to simplify" seems equally troublesome, requiring a crystal ball -- I have no confidence in reading this paper that another person would cut the boundaries the same way. --Scott David Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig