What is different with Python ?

[Andrew Dalke]

Terry Hancock wrote:
> Of course, since children are vastly better at learning
> than adults, perhaps adults are stupid to do this. ;-)

Take learning a language.  I'm learning Swedish.  I'll
never have a native accent and 6 year olds know more
of the language than I do.  But I make much more
complicated sentences than 6 year olds.  (Doesn't mean
they are grammatically correct, but I can get my point
across given a lot of time.)

> Quantum mechanics notwithstanding, I'm not sure there
> is a "bottom" "most-reduced" level of understanding. It's
> certainly not clear that it is relevant to programming.

I agree.  That's why I make this thread branch.  I think
learning is often best taught from extending what you know
and not from some sort of top/bottom approach. I'm also
one who bristles at hierarchies.  Maybe that's why I like
Python and duck typing. :)

Some learning works by throwing yourself in the deep end.
Languages are sometimes learned that way.  The Suzuki method
extends that to music, though that's meant for kids.

> Python is actually remarkably good at solving things in a
> nearly optimal way.

Have you read Richard Gabriel's "Worse is Better" essay?
 http://www.dreamsongs.com/WIB.html
Section "2.2.4 Totally Inappropriate Data Structures"
relates how knowing the data structure for Lisp affects
the performance and seems relevant to your point.

				Andrew
				dalke at dalkescientific.com