kirby urner wrote:
> http://www.4dsolutions.net/ocn/numeracy0.html -- numeracy3.html
This is *great* material, thanks. My background being in computer
graphics I really enjoyed reading it. I wish I would've had that when I
was the right age. (which reminds me: what age group do you usually teach
kirby urner wrote:
> I guess what makes me a liberal arts humanities type is our glorious
> diversity was never a big problem for me. I sense it's not a big
> problem for you, either.
Yeah, both liberal arts types.
But I guees I see myself more from "the poem is the poem" school. See
what's
> Is your curriculum available online somewhere? I'd be very interested in
> finding out what parts could be done easily and what parts could not. We
> have been talking for a while now to step up the age group a little and
> it sounds as if this may make an interesting case study.
>
http://www.4d
Hi,
For all of you who were interested, I've put the final version of my
Masters' project report online at
http://peter.mapledesign.co.uk/writings/physics/teaching-introductory-programming-to-physics-undergraduates.pdf.
The project has proved successful, as the school of Physics at the
Univ
kirby urner wrote:
> So I was wondering if my curriculum could be implemented in
> Squeakland, starting from simple sequence generators (triangular and
> tetrahedral numbers) and moving up, step by step, to the associated
> computer graphics.
Is your curriculum available online somewhere? I'd be v
On 8/10/06, Andreas Raab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> kirby urner wrote:
> > How will Smalltalk help me with simple sequences, e.g. the triangular
> > and then tetrahedral numbers? That's all I want to know. And the
> > answer I usually get is: first, you must go to a special world called
> > Sq
kirby urner wrote:
> How will Smalltalk help me with simple sequences, e.g. the triangular
> and then tetrahedral numbers? That's all I want to know. And the
> answer I usually get is: first, you must go to a special world called
> Squeakland. In Python, I just boot IDLE, enter the function, an
On 8/10/06, Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is Python really a clear implementation of a simple paradigm? I assume
> you are meaning OO. Or if that is not is what you are saying here, it
> is what I keeping here you say, nonetheless.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. People tell me it's
Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> Again, just because Smalltalk has this and Python does not does not mean
> I'm saying "use Smalltalk". I'm just saying, how can Python get this
> feature? Maybe it can't. Then my next thing is, can the two syntaxes live
> side by side -- a possible area for exploration.
On 8/10/06, Paul D. Fernhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to be too hard on you or Kirby, but I think it is easy to not see the
> value of the unfamiliar, and there is a lot functional foo() syntax makes
> difficult and awkward looking (Lisp, a Python ancestor in a sense, has a
> bit of this p
On Thursday 10 August 2006 10:24 am, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> What about constructors like
>"Line origin: 10 @ 10 angle: 35 degrees distance: 10 mm"
> (which is easy to have in Smalltalk syntax) and so on? And I bet you can
> read what it means not even knowing Smalltalk. Would you rather rea
On 8/10/06, Paul D. Fernhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kirby-
>
> Thanks for the insightful comments, including about "vacation" languages,
> which I agree with.
>
> You make a good point distinguishing conventional content (astronomy,
> higher mathematics) from programming issues. I guess my an
Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>Arthur-
>
>I think this issue of argument labeling may fall into the same category of
>variable naming.
>
I think it is a lot deeper than that.
I think it about Python being effective in blurring the line between
producer and consumer, programmer and non-programmer, wh
Arthur-
As a simplification, admittedly a cartoon, most professional
mathematicians often care very deeply about a very few things for a long
time (where a mathematician might spend ten years thinking about, say,
proving Fermat's last conjecture) where they refine a concise notation
they under
Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>In the syntax case, I am continuing to point out that Smalltalk's keyword
>syntax (e.g. "Point x: 10 y: 20" versus "Point(10, 20)" ) produces code
>where all arguments are labeled and so it is easier to read and
>understand.
>
That is, IMO, an arbitrary point of view, a
Kirby-
Thanks for the insightful comments, including about "vacation" languages,
which I agree with.
You make a good point distinguishing conventional content (astronomy,
higher mathematics) from programming issues. I guess my answer there is
handwaving about the potential for a PataPata versi
kirby urner wrote:
>With PataPata, it seems you're unhappy with Python being a crystal
>clear implementation of a simple paradigm
>
Is Python really a clear implementation of a simple paradigm? I assume
you are meaning OO. Or if that is not is what you are saying here, it
is what I keeping her
17 matches
Mail list logo
