Fwd: re AMTE thread re DrScheme & Python

[Kirby Urner]

For more context re the below, see the archived thread 
(on-going) at the Math Forum.  This is from an 
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators
listserv:

   http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/amte/snuquoiyor

If people posting here have the time to read what
Matthias says about Python... e.g.:

>   As far as the language is concerned, Python is a 
>     - highly irregular, 
>     - badly implemented
>     - non-parethetical version of (Mz)Scheme
>     - without underlying theory of programming 
>       language design 
>     - or program development 
>     - with a cult-like following. 

I'd be happy to read their feedback.

Kirby Urner
Curriculum writer
Oregon Curriculum Network
http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/ocn


==========================================================

Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:15:58 -0800
To: amte at esunix.emporia.edu
From: Kirby Urner <pdx4d at teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Computers in Math Class (was Math Myopia...)


>    The proper response to this table is that we don't 
>    play such shameless, back-stabbing games. People should 
>    test DrScheme for an afternoon on their own. Type in 
>    factorial. Run it. Make a mistake. Run it. Use the stepper. 
>    Then compare with Python, which offers nothing but scripting 
>    hacks. 
>
>    Matthias,

That's an interesting response, thanks Marvin!

Re "shameless back-stabbing", I think what Guido & Co. 
say about DrScheme on that July 1999 CNRI Proposal I cited 
sounds far less vitriolic and denigrating of DrScheme 
than the above remarks about Python.[1]

I would rather discourage an either/or approach right off the 
bat -- unless the Python computer language is really so 
unredeemably inferior as Matthias indicates.  

I'll need to make a deeper study of the points he makes. I 
know Bruce Eckel, whom I respect as a top-notch author of 
OOP-teaching texts (e.g. 'Thinking in C++' 'Thinking in Java') 
has had a lot of kind words for Python recently.[2]  Bruce
gets into languages pretty deeply.  I'd think if Python 
were really so bad, that Bruce would have been harder on
it right from the outset.

Certainly I've found Python useful in my own curriculum 
writing for the Oregon Curriculum Network [3].  I stumbled 
across it relatively late in the game, and my seven chapter 
"Using Polyhedra to Teach OOP and Coordinate Geometry Concepts" 
reflects this.[4]  I don't get to Python until the last 
chapter.[5]

So maybe it's time for chapter eight, using DrScheme, about 
which I have an open mind (although I must say I'm rather put 
off by what looks to be a rather defensive and "cult like" 
mentality surrounding the DrScheme project :-D).

Kirby

PS:  I'll refer this discussion to some Python newsgroup for
feedback.  I'd like to hear more technically savvy discussion
about the points raised against it by Matthias -- but probably 
this AMTE listserv is not the proper forum for that.

Notes:

[1] http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e.html

[2] "My associate Andrea Provaglio and I both continue 
    to be fascinated by this terrific and tremendously 
    productive language" -- Bruce Eckel, Object-Oriented 
    Programming Newsletter #7, Nov 29, 1999

[3] http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/ocn/

[4] http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/ocn/oop.html

[5] http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/ocn/oop7.html