Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-19 Thread Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra
[ Kirby ] --- | OO really is a different world. I think it still makes sense to teach | the subject historically, even though we *can* start with objects at | the same time. +1, did that in practice and worked really well. [ Laura ]: | This may make sense for

Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-14 Thread Danny Yoo
ps -- i am not entirely sold on oo programming. clearly it is the correct way to model certain problems, but a more functional approach seems better suited to other kinds. I think teaching TDD is more important than OO these days. Am I only reflecting my own loves and predjudice? Hi

Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-13 Thread Laura Creighton
In a message of Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:08:50 PDT, Kirby Urner writes: OO really is a different world. I think it still makes sense to teach the subject historically, even though we *can* start with objects at the same time. In other words, have students relive some of the trauma of moving from the

Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-13 Thread Kirby Urner
In a message of Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:08:50 PDT, Kirby Urner writes: OO really is a different world. I think it still makes sense to teach the subject historically, even though we *can* start with objects at the same time. In other words, have students relive some of the trauma of moving

Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-13 Thread Scott David Daniels
Kirby Urner wrote: Based on my working with Bernie, I think it's helpful to start early with the class/object distinction rectobj = Rectangle(...) rectobj.setWidth(10) rectobj.draw() A useful note here: all programmers are _used_ to using objects: The file for I/O is an OS-defined

Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-13 Thread Kirby Urner
Classes are not a feasible choice to start with because they are a most complex structure in a programming language that builds on knowledge of virtually anything else. We agree on a lot of points. Because just about any decent Python script makes use of core data structures, such as the

Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-13 Thread Kirby Urner
You might try: These names don't just exist in some primordial soup. There has to be a place they get stored. There is a bit of magic: import __main__ a = 24 print a, __main__.a __main__.a = 365 print a, __main__.a And even: print a, __main__.a,

Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-13 Thread Dan Crosta
whoops, sent this reply off-list by accident (apologies to Scott) Here's a thought that just jumped into my mind, I don't know if it has any value, but bear me out: I think it probably makes most sense to introduce programming to totally new people in a procedural/structured/whatever you

Re: [Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-13 Thread Chuck Allison
Hello Scott, Monday, June 13, 2005, 10:16:12 AM, you wrote: SDD Kirby Urner wrote: Based on my working with Bernie, I think it's helpful to start early with the class/object distinction rectobj = Rectangle(...) rectobj.setWidth(10) rectobj.draw() SDD A useful note here: all

[Edu-sig] Explaining Classes and Objects

2005-06-12 Thread Kirby Urner
So I'm back to helping Bernie Gunn with Python again. He's in charge of the Geokem web site, where lots of scientific information gets collated -- global data basically, much of it geochemical. The HQS is in New Zealand. I salute Bernie, a relatively old guy, for taking a flying leap to our OO