Hi Guido,
I still think your choice of words was inappropriate. If anything is
an anathema, then it's the huge body of impenetrable C code in linux,
the libraries, X11, gecko, gtk, cairo, and, yes, underlying Python,
too, and even Squeak, though to a much lesser extent. This prevents
opening the hood, seeing how things work, modifying it, constructing
new things etc. *This* is against the OLPC philosophy, which
explicitly encourages constructionist learning.
Sadly, there isn't anything comparable to Etoys in the whole open
source world. Actually, strike that last five words. It's not like
most of it couldn't be done in Python, but for whatever reason,
nobody does it. I'd be happy to hear otherwise, but so far, the
Python community (or anybody else for that matter) to me does not
exactly appear enthusiastic about creating something that could
replace Etoys.
- Bert -
On Mar 9, 2007, at 17:26 , Guido van Rossum wrote:
Thanks Alan. I'm quite satisfied with this response and I agree with
the priorities!
On 3/9/07, Alan Kay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Guido knows that I've been advocating that the Python folks
should do Etoys
or a very Etoys like environment in Python (and that the rest of
the OLPC be
given an objectification and media and scripting integration that
is Etoys
like).
However, there are simply zillions of things left to be done
everywhere for
OLPC so the first round of SW on the XO will be more of a
gathering of
"suggestive" features and abilities (of which Etoys is just one).
That seems
fine to me.
Viewpoints Research (our little non-profit) doesn't have any "ego or
identity" staked around whether the children's authoring
environment is
Python based or Squeak based. I have said many times that, if the
general
integrative base of XO is to be Python, then the Etoys-like
authoring should
be based in Python also.
However, I will personally fight to the death to make sure that
there is a
children's authoring environment that allows even young children
to do
simulation style programming with very rich media objects.
For now, that is Etoys. It could be a suitable object-oriented
Logo with
media objects (this is essentially what Etoys is). It could be
some better
design (let's do one). The base could be Javascript (if
implemented on top
of an integrated environment of sufficient power), Python (ditto),
Ruby
(ditto), etc. Whatever it is, it has to be above high thresholds,
not a hack
or a gesture.
Besides the programming the children use to learn important ideas
in math
and science, they also need to be able to see how their own
computer world
is structured by being able to "pop the hood" on practically
everything they
use. Perhaps it is OK for high school children to see the current
code (but
I don't think so). I think there needs to be a wrapping on the
entire set of
facilities that uses the same conventions that 9 year olds do
their own
programming in. Again, if it is to be Python, then it needs to be
crafted a
bit for younger children. E.g. Etoys allows easy unlimited
parallel tasking,
and this is very important for children's programming. Etc.
There are many good things that can be done here. We live in a
computing
world in which there is a tremendous amount of identification
between many
programmers and the tools they use -- so strong that it resembles
religious
fervor. From my view, ALL of the system have such flaws that we
are better
off being critical of all of them and try to use the best ideas from
everywhere.
If "Children First!" is really the goal here, then we must spend
most of
our energies trying to make the childrens' environments more
conducive to
creative learning of powerful ideas.
Cheers,
Alan
At 02:52 AM 3/9/2007, MBurns wrote:
On 3/8/07, no body <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Isn't the mere presence of eToys on the XO a complete anathema to
the
sugar philosophy?
As the XO is about education and etoys is the only software on
the OLPC
that
actually has any relation to education the above is a somewhat
confusing
statement. But maybe I misunderstood and the XO is really about
Python...
I think the quote is referencing something else (though I may
misunderstand).
The eToys environment is a self-contained world of development. One
that exists within the Sguar world of development. Programs,
projects,
source code and objects written in that eToys world do not exist
outside in the Sugar world. You can write a sugar Activity or an
eToys
bundle, and, as we have seen in the gaming realm, they can often
accomplish the same end goal.
Now this may or may not be an issue to people(OLPC devs, students,
teacers), they may or may not care, but it is an interesting 'world
inside a world' for this transparent learning machine we are
developing.
--
Michael Burns * Security Student
NET * Oregon State University
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
