Andrea Griffini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:52:57 -0400, Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> Also concrete->abstract shows a clear path; starting
> in the middle and looking both up (to higher
> abstractions) and down (to the implementation
> details) is IMO much more confusing.
So you're arguing that a CS major should start by learning electronics
fundamentals, how gates work, and how to design hardware(*)? Because
that's what the concrete level *really* is. Start anywhere above that,
and you wind up needing to look both ways.
Admittedly, at some level the details simply stop mattering. But where
that level is depends on what level you're working on. Writing Python,
I really don't need to understand the behavior of hardware
gates. Writing horizontal microcode, I'm totally f*cked if I don't
understand the behavior of hardware gates.
In short, you're going to start in the middle. You can avoid looking
down if you avoid certain classes of problems - but not everyone will
be able to do that. Since you can only protect some of the students
from this extra confusion, is it really justified to confuse them all
by introducing what are really extraneous details early on?
You've stated your opinion. Personally, I agree with Abelson, Sussman
and Sussman, whose text "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer
Programs" was the standard text at one of the premiere engineering
schools in the world, and is widely regarded as a classic in the
field: they decided to start with the abstract, and deal with concrete
issues - like assignment(!) later.
<mike
*) "My favorite programming langauge is solder." - Bob Pease
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
