On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:23 AM, kirby urner wrote:
<< SNIP >>
> Thinking in Python includes thinking about ordinary everyday things in
> Python. It doesn't mean fantasizing about the guts of a Von Neumann
> architecture computer unless you really need that to be your knowledge
> domain i.e.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Iwan Vosloo wrote:
> Hi Kirby,
>
> You may be interested in Dijkstra's take on teaching via metaphor:
> https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html
> I am not sure exactly how it applies to your case.
>
>
I'm going through this. Interest
Hi Kirby,
You may be interested in Dijkstra's take on teaching via metaphor:
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html
I am not sure exactly how it applies to your case.
It seems to me that OO tends to get taught in terms of the mechanisms
present in OO languages and
I'm working to forge that connection more explicitly myself. The idea of
> "frames" (as in time frames, frames of file, intervals of action) figures
> in.
>
> Kirby
>
"frames of film" I meant to say (not "file").
The browser window frame = puppet theater is part of it. JavaScript pulls
the stri
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Carl Karsten wrote:
> I also don't show real code right away. I scribble on the white board.
>
>
Yeah, I think we're just talking about different points along the journey.
I'm fine with Blueprint and/or Cookie Cutter at first, as the predominant
metaphor, and no
I also don't show real code right away. I scribble on the white board.
class MotherShip; ... yeah, that's correct, but to me it looks too wordy
for what is a fairly simple concept.
hmm... simple? ok, inheritance is the concept that I think is fairly
simple if you don't dive into all the othe
Sounds like we agree Carl. The "blueprint" metaphor is not that great. It
keeps us from thinking more fluently about OO after awhile. A straitjacket.
Kirby
___
Edu-sig mailing list
Edu-sig@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:53 PM, kirby urner wrote:
<< SNIP >>
> I like to say the class is a "mother ship" and serves as a kind of "home
> base" or "platform". How about an "amusement park"?
>
>
Another one to limber up on:
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Created on Wed Apr 20 15:27:35 2016
@au
>
> Our classes often behave a lot more like objects with a life of their own.
>
>
For example I might do something like this. One could argue this is not
describing an "is a" relationship i.e. how can each member of the landing
party be a "ship".
I'm saying we internalize our type inheritance an
> I like to say the class is a "mother ship" and serves as a kind of "home
base" or "platform". How about an "amusement park"?
...
I don't think any of that is any better.
When explaining OOP, I have two points I try to drive home.
0. you can do anything in any language any way you please. OOP
I want to suggest that the much-used metaphor (by me included):
"class is a blueprint, with instances the buildings made from it"
(houses usually) is a good start, but not nuanced enough to take us all the
way to the end of our story.
These days I've taken a two pronged approach: yes, OO is mea
11 matches
Mail list logo
