CP4E was Re: Deitel and Deitel Book...

[Christopher Encapera]

As someone who just learned (a little) Python and wrote my first useful Ap a
few days ago, I would like to jump in here with my 1.5 cents.  Perhaps
another limitation to this analogy is, it seems to me, that programming IS
syntax and it's manipulation, and meaning is to be found in the (meaningful)
manipulation of the data.  A child, or adult, is inherently flexible when it
comes to syntax, but a computer is (inherently) not.  Thus:

A child:

I want da purtee pituur

or

Give me give me give me give me

or 

Will you show me the pretty picture please?



Whereas a computer accepts only (or some strict variant):

# Pseudo code for opening an imaging app, and sending output to print
device...
...
...
...

Thus, the need for jumping right into syntax immediately (if you want to
produce anything even remotely meaningful)


Also concerning logic, I think it would be (perhaps) more accurate to say
that people think (and solve most of their problems) at a higher level of
abstraction - more in the realm of "meanings" and "relationships" where many
different kinds of knowledge and inter-connectedness come into play.  The
thought world of formal logic and mathematics is too rigid to be the sole
(or even a major factor) in most thinking.  For example, my wife "thinks"
that my desk is "too messy" and that I need to "organize it", but what she
does not realize is that every pile is an organization (of sorts), and that
I...etc. etc (until the end of our hopefully "meaningful" lives :)



Christopher Encapera
Lantech.Com
chrise at lantech.com
502-267-4200


-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Gerrietts [mailto:geoff at gerrietts.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:32 PM
To: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: CP4E was Re: Deitel and Deitel Book...


Quoting Ramkumar Kashyap (rkashyap at sympatico.ca):
> This is extremely non-intuitive to most people.  Most 5,6,7 year olds 
> can speak fluently in their native languages, but how many of them could 
> tell you about vowels, consonants, nouns, verbs, adjectives.  In fact 
> quite a few of them speak multiple languages, can easily differentiate 
> sentence structures in those languages, but would be hard-pressed to 
> give defintions of the above.
> 
> So how come in programming, we ALWAYS jump into the constructs of a 
> language, rather than just doing, gaining proficiency and then 
> understanding how it is put together?

I think the analogy here is interesting and useful, and bears
consideration. I think that what you're asking for -- a reexamination
of the pedagogy surrounding computer programming -- is useful.

I would hesitate to suggest that your methodology is exactly
appropriate, though. Here's why:
...



My belief is that most people find computer programming to be
difficult because logic is not the natural way people think; it is a
forced mode. People tend to think intuitively, using "gut feelings"
and good guesswork. That's the way we tend to summarize the knowledge
of our experiences: as gut feelings.

Expressing things in a purely logical fashion is consequently
difficult for people, and very few ever receive formal training in
logic. What's worse is that trying to teach logic at the fundamental
level doesn't immediately apply. Logic itself is a tool that a person
must learn to use, and could easily fill several courses by itself.

...