The people who don't learn are not motivated and not enthusiastic
That is an incredibly complacent attitude, pedagogically. I'm not suprised
to hear it, I'm afraid.
*sigh* You aren't listening are you?
L.
- Original Message -
From: R Bartlett ra.bartl...@ntlworld.com
To: S.A.Fincher s.a.finc...@kent.ac.uk
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Intuitiveness of programming languages/paradigms
You may be interested to see some of the portfolios generated by
chalk face
with you.
- Original Message - From: Frank Wales fr...@limov.com
To: Ppig-Discuss-List@open.ac.uk
Cc: R Bartlett ra.bartl...@ntlworld.com
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: Intuitiveness of programming languages/paradigms
R Bartlett wrote:
I think if you ask CS
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Derek M Jones de...@knosof.co.uk wrote:
approach easier, and some of whom find another. From a teaching
point of view, would it be possible to offer two introductory
streams, one functional and one imperative, and let students
choose and/or transfer early?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
I wonder if the question of intuitiveness could be studied
at the level of arithmetic rather than programming as a whole.
For example, Smalltalk counts as OO-imperative, but has
bignum and ratio arithmetic built in and
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Lindsay Marshall
lindsay.marsh...@newcastle.ac.uk wrote:
I think this is a complete red herring. But there again so is the whole idea
of intuitiveness.
agreed :-)
my point (which might have been exactly the same as yours) was just
that if we are going to try
Maybe it is time to rewrite K-12 math books to be in line with computational
processing.
It would be great. Imagine dad at the dining room table trying to explain to
little Johnny... 100 Cheerios are here, and if we add another, we have -100
Cheerios.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
With respect
Derek M Jones writes:
I'm sure Lindsay could design a language, but it might only be
an imagined intuitive-to-him language.
apologies if i misunderstand, but if you are saying that the devil is
in the details, i fully agree, and that is what i mean by logic being
non-intuitive, and similarly
Raoul,
I'm sure Lindsay could design a language, but it might only be
an imagined intuitive-to-him language.
apologies if i misunderstand, but if you are saying that the devil is
in the details, i fully agree, and that is what i mean by logic being
non-intuitive, and similarly programming. in
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
a different syntax, and indeed Lisp-Flavored Erlang exists.
+1 for mentioning lfe; i wish somebody would do something similar for
ada some day.
(forwarding my earlier direct reply to Richard)
[This is] A regularly recurring question, over the years of PPIG!
This has been the starting point for a number of PhDs, but a religious
war seldom makes a good PhD. I'm not aware that the results have ever
found anything very conclusive. Some
On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:18 AM, keith gallagher wrote:
like i said, i'm not sure intuition exists
What's quite certain is that *claims* of intuitiveness exist.
I think it's possible to operationalise the concept.
Given languages of similar syntactic complexity,
which of several paradigms is
12 matches
Mail list logo
