Typed Python?

[Arthur]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 23:13:49 -0700, Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net>
wrote:

>Why not have fun while learning computer science? 

Yes please, fun.

I am somewhere between a CP4E-er and a "computer science" -er.

There is much to be done with programming, IMO, in the educuational
process that is something short of hard core computer science.
Practical programming as a tool for other learning and teaching
possiblities.  But in areas that themselves tend to be tehnical and
demanding (mathematics and science, the most obvious), so the
association of these efforts with "technical" and "demanding" need not
be soft pedaled. It need not be "easy". 


>Scheme is just a 
>programming language. It is not in and of itself a revelation of the 
>deepest concepts of computer science. Python supports recursion, second 
>order functions, numerical programming and hundreds of other important 
>concepts. In my mind, Scheme actually lacks important stuff like the 
>idea that types can be created (not simulated, but CREATED) by 
>programmers and not just language designers. It also lacks various other 
>OOP concepts (in its standard form).

For the things I hoped to accomplish by learning to program - based on
available compatible libraries and tools - Java would have been a more
practical choice.   

Not being in a position to talk to the issue of the "deepest concepts
of computer science", I would have no reason to reject Java for Python
(or Scheme).

But since my self directed efforts were not a required course, and not
designed as a career move, I did demand to be having some fun at it.

Which I think is more or less how I ended up at Python.

Hard to define why this is so.  But the word "fun" is slung around the
Python community with abandon, and it is one word used within the
community that I have never found a basis to quibble with.  

Art