Teaching python (programming) to children

[David Andreas Alderud]

> Given what you've said, I guess I'll accept that Ada had a lot of upfront
> design - I'm not here simply to disagree! I presume you mean strawman,
> stoneman, ironman? OK, but in that case how come there had to be a "next
> version"? Clearly all that up-front design didn't produce a perfect
> language. How is this different (except perhaps in terms of gestation
time)
> from other standardised languages?

Naturally, there is no such thing as a perfect language, because the
perception of people are different, and changing with time.
The design changed when OO became the thing on everyone's lips, just like
components are today, but adding components to a language is simple, OO is
not. (Though it is quite simple to write OO code in a non-OO language.)
There is some strong doubt about the need of OO in Ada, but now it's part of
the standard so there no point in complaining about it.

> Well you surely don't believe that *buildings* are built exactly as they
are
> conceived? Why else do the construction teams have to supply "as built"
> drawings - because they have to modify the building design as construction
> progresses, to take into account the practical considerations of the site,
> materials, etc.

No, of course not. But I recommend that you read books on architectures by
members of the Go4 or the simpler ISBN 0-201-69967-2 to understand what I'm
trying to say.

> Software is difficult precisely because it is so malleable, and so a
design
> can evolve. This is both a good and a bad thing. But none of this really
has
> to do with suitability as a teaching language, and I still don't see Ada
as
> any better for teaching purposes than Python.

You could read my reply to Laura for more information.