At 02:37 PM 12/8/2008 -0500, Vern Ceder wrote:
... here are the reasons I see that more
schools don't offer programming:
1) Lack of qualified staff. Sadly a graduate with a teaching certificate
(as required by the state) usually doesn't have anything like the
background to teach programming, let
We need lots of examples where programming is useful to non-programmers. I
already mentioned the real estate agent needing to digest some data from the
property appraisers office. For the shop teacher: How about a homeowner
wanting to lay tiles, avoid wastage, and slivers that look bad along
I agree that finding relevant problems that are easily solved with a
quickie program is hard to find. One idea I've been toying with at
Stratolab from our programming coures is having a programming game to
artificially create interesting quickie programs.
How about Robot Wars of the past,
I would think any teacher of math or science would have no difficulty using
Python and integrating it into their teaching. Don't teach it as a separate
subject, but introduce each new statement as it is needed.
Right. That's the strategy I thought would be most practical working within
the
2008/12/10 michel paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SNIP
There is a big contrast between doing math the traditional way, solving
equations by manipulating symbols in some boolean assertion to isolate a
variable, vs. thinking computationally - creating sets of functions to model
concepts.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:57 AM, David MacQuigg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kirby,
This is very well written appeal, but in this mailing list, you may be
preaching to the choir. What I would like to see is a discussion of *why*
there is not more teaching of programming in high school. I can't
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
The occasion yesterday was the Program for the Future conference at
the Tech Museum (San Jose CA), Adobe Systems, and Stanford, and the
celebration of the 40th anniversary of Doug Engelbart's Mother of All
Demos
Daniel Ajoy schrieb:
But the criteria of relevant problems, easily solved with a quickie
program is tough to meet.
...
And another point is that some problems cannot be solved using algebra or trig.
I believe this is one:
http://neoparaiso.com/logo/problema-triangulos.html
It
So I've been yakking with Ian (tizard.stanford.edu) re the new
fractions.py, installed in Standard Library per 2.6, saw it demoed at
a recent user group meeting (PPUG).
Python's __div__ is similar to Mathematica's computer algebra notion
of division in that you're free to divide any type by any
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:47 PM, kirby urner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I've been yakking with Ian (tizard.stanford.edu) re the new
fractions.py, installed in Standard Library per 2.6, saw it demoed at
a recent user group meeting (PPUG).
Python's __div__ is similar to Mathematica's computer
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
There are different schools of thought about this actually. I don't
think pride comes into it.
Well, *my* school is quite pompous about it. We think open oh is for sissies.
But that's just us (quirky).
The problem is that calculus tends to deal with the concept of infinitesimally
small and O(eps) is used for small eps. Computer Science tends to deal with
complexity and O(n) is used for large n. The Big-Oh definitions are different:
i) In calculus f(x) in O(g(x)) iff lim_{x\rightarrow 0}
12 matches
Mail list logo
