--- On Mon, 9/8/08, kirby urner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: kirby urner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Andre Roberge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> So no explicit target or receiver for the message, as the
> Smalltalk
> people might say? I.e. you don't say myturtle.move()
> but just move(),
> more like Logo?
>
Hi Kirby,
There are some object-oriented variants of Karel the Robot:
http://pclc.pace.edu/~bergin/karel.html
Guido van Robot and Webster van Robot are purely procedural, which has the
following benefits:
1) There's a lot less typing, which means more time for thinking, exploring,
etc.
2) You can master simple, but fundamental, concepts like creating methods and
nesting loops without the conceptual overhead of object-oriented programming.
I would love to brainstorm ideas on creating a path from GvR and WvR to more
object-oriented programming. IMHO you need to make sure you do it in a
non-superficial way. For example, I would want your object space to be rich
enough that you actually have objects that interface with each other.
Perhaps I'm biased by my own experiences. I started off with procedural
languages and learned a lot from them. I had some time to understand their
limitations, so when I was finally introduced to object-oriented programming
(C++ in my case), I was highly motivated to appreciate its benefits. Also, as
Python programmers, I guess we can all appreciate that OO and procedural
programming can live side by side.
To me one of the biggest advantages of object-oriented programming is the
notion of data encapsulation. Guido and Webster don't even deal with data.
_______________________________________________
Edu-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
