On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:10 , Andrew Clunis wrote:
One thing that does bother me about hacking within a running
instance of
a program is that people might get sloppy about the state of their
program; they'll be coding against state produced by their earlier
code,
including buggy stuff they deleted or changed. Perhaps I misunderstand
somehow and someone can refute this?
I guess this is new territory, not sure to which extent this has been
tried in Python yet. There was talk about this some time ago on the
edu-sig list, which was resumed because of Guido's xreload:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2007-February/007794.html
I think, for gen1 at least, that Develop should focus on older
children
and hackers writing Activities, and eToys should focus on providing a
learning environment for the youngest children.
That isn't necessarily ideal, but it is certainly the most realistic
target. That doesn't mean that Develop won't learn as many lessons
from
etoys as it can, and perhaps ultimately do what eToys does now for the
young kids.
I'm looking forward to see how this pans out :)
ow 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.
This is an important distinction to make. Develop has to deal with
the
real world (at least within the context of the XO), whereas eToys has
the benefit of being self-contained.
OTOH, the whole idea of developing a new environment (Sugar) is
precisely to make a world where kids can explore freely. There
shouldn't be any artificial limit of what you can do in there.
- Bert -
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
