> > I've been watching this discussion and wondering - how much of the > > problems > > people complain about would go away if here was a "teaching" > distribution > > of > > python. That is one that did the equivalent of > > > > from teaching import * > > Nowadays, college students want to do "real programming". You call a > language 'teaching' - you loose. I actually have to work hard to > convince my students that Python is not just a teaching language, but a > language for real work. I show them various rankings based on use, > salaries, jobs, etc. > > A great thing about Python is that it is popular in commercial projects > and at the same time, you can teach beginners with it. IMHO, this is one > of the most distinguishing features of Python in comparison to other > languages > > > from teaching import * > > This will immediately create two difficulties. > 1. You implicitly declare to your students you are not dealing with > "real programming". > 2. You most likely have to tell your entry-level students that you > cannot explain what the above thing means, but you will tell them later. > People switch form Java to Python to *avoid* this kind of situations.
What if instead of naming the package "teaching", it was called something less offensive, like "simpleIO" or "userinput" or "interactive" or "convenience"? Toby -- Dr. Toby Donaldson School of Computing Science Simon Fraser University (Surrey) _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
