On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Edward Cherlin <[email protected]> wrote:
<< SNIP >> >> So you're doing that in your head? > > Not at all. I can do this example with paper and pencil, and I would > want a calculator or a log table for larger examples. Let's see... And I would want my Python shell. I don't own a calculator, have no need for one. > > 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 > 2 8 34 144 610 2584 > 2 10 44 188 798 3382, ok, 4 more terms...Third grade paper and pencil > arithmetic for the rest. > >> I think the word "programming" is misleading in some contexts. > > I don't use the word for anything that can easily be done on a > non-programmable calculator, an abacus, or a half sheet of paper by > one with the skills commonly taught (though not very often learned in > full) for each. I'm not that impressed by "commonly taught skills" i.e. if a kid knows how to use a TI, but not Python, I'm inclined to move on to the next candidate. > >> Using Python as a calculator is what Guido mentions in his tutorial. >> >> Python or TI? >> >> XO or TI? > > Similarly for APL and J. > Yes, as I've mentioned, APL was my first language and I've worked with Iverson himself on a paper about J. I heard from Roger Hui just the other day. Part of why I fell in love with Python is because of its orthogonal primitives, feels like APL in some ways. Plus the whole OO thing is way cool, highly accessible. My oft stated preference is to NOT ever (ever) get stuck in teaching just one language, even if one emphasizes just one in this or that classroom or on-line session. Per some brain science I've been studying, we really do *not* multitask, even though we appear to, any more than an Intel chip really does (OK, some do, but at one time it was all round robin). Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
