[Edu-sig] A fact on the ground

[Richard J Panek Jr]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 11:51:50 -0800,  wrote:
>Dirk confirms he intended this for the list, suggested
>I could redirect...
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>BvR:
>> >Let me confirm that there is a difference between aptness=
 for
>>math and
>> >for programming!  While I have a math degree, it became clear=
 to
>>me
>> >that I wasn't a math-head about halfway my second year in 
college.
>> >Around the same time it was also abundantly clear that I=
 loved
>> >programming! :-)
>> >
>> >--Guido van Rossum (home page:=
 http://www.python.org/~guido/)
>> >
>>
>KU:
>> I think any fork in the road between being a "math head" or a
>> "programmer" could/should come later in life.  In K-12 at=
 least,
>> we don't want to overspecialize.  Synergy, integration,=
 making
>> connections, is what's good for young and growing neural=
 nets.
>>
>> You'll have all the time you need to specialize and narrow=
 your
>> focus later in life.  But lets start with more of a=
 commitment
>> to well roundedness.
>
>Here's how i came to computers: In the age of 15 or so, i=
 started
>soldering together some synthesizer modules. They sounded=
 terrible,
>very noisy, and every circuit knew just one trick. As the first
>sound samplers appeared on the scene, i built my first 8080-
>based computer in order to make sound. Instead, it turned out=
 to
>be much more fascinating to build computers and do systems
>programming.
>
>In school, math was easy for me, but i *never* used my homebrew
>computers or the then-arriving CBMs and C64s for solving math
>problems.
>
>It was always two very distinct things for me. Computing and
>outputting
>a sine wave in real time is nearly no math but a lot of=
 assembler
>language.
>
>I understand that it seems natural for math teachers to=
 associate
>computers with math.
>
>They would make just as much sense in music (if music teachers
>were not so conservative about what is music and what is noise
>in their ears), natural sciences etc.
>
>Using computers is usually a meta-activity, or it starts as a=
 meta-
>activity:
>you want to improve the electronic sounds you can make, so you
>program a computer to produce sounds.You want to visualize
>a geometric shape, so you program a computer to do that.
>You want to synthesize natural language, so you
>build a program for that. Whatever. It has nothing to do with=
 math.
>Maybe it has more to do with languages than with math. Okay,
>i use simple arithmetic all the time, like
> return x[i]
>is some address arithmetics (at least, it would be in C.).
>Well, what a lot of complicated math
>that is!!! You really want to convince me programming and
>math are related??? Insofar buying a loaf of bread and counting
>the change is a very math-related activity!
>
>Python is quite good for doing math programming, and bad
>for realtime I/O control, so no wonder that on a Python-centric=
 list
>people associate "CP4E" with "math". The language you use
>determines what you can think about.
>
>Dipl.Inform. Dirk-Ulrich Heise
>business: hei@adtranzsig.de
>private: dheise@debitel.net
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Edu-sig mailing list
>Edu-sig@python.org
>http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig

I mostly agree with the idea of computing as a meta-activity- 
computers are a tool we use to do neat things.  However math and=
 
programming are a natural fit because they primarily center on 
problem solving.  Music, government, and humanities do not have=
 this 
focus, and I think it would be difficult to conceptualize a=
 problem 
'solved' by music (and I certainly can't think of one solved by 
government!).  Kidding aside, the ability to take a problem=
 stated in 
a natural language, decompose it into more abstract concepts,=
 apply 
some basic logic to those concepts, and then present the results=
 in a 
manner consistent with the language the problem was stated in is=
 a 
skill that has traditionally been taught through math, and is a 
necessary skill for programming.  Perhaps a language-oriented 
approach would also be valid, but natural language contains a lot=
 of 
ambiguity and context-sensitive information that I think would=
 only 
make the task of problem solving even harder.  

  
-- Richard J Panek Jr, rpanek@mitre.org on 01/05/2001