New Python implementation

[Avi Gross]

Dennis made the interesting comment "... Python has too much built in ..."

I understand his point. At the same time, I wonder what most people using
computers today, or in the future, need. Given serious amounts of computer
power, what many people may want is higher-level ways to get things done
without worrying how they are done. Python, like many such languages, has a
very basic core that is augmented by what could be libraries, packages,
modules and so on but have been chosen to be built-in to one distribution or
another.

Some people and organizations use some things so commonly, they want python
to start up automatically loading say numpy and pandas and other such
things. They may not care if the programmer knows how to make a linked list
or binary tree data structure. Many such details are encapsulated within
objects built and tested already. 

I have seen subjects taught at various levels and python might qualify too.
I took a Physics course that required Calculus and used it to derive
formulas and other things. Others took one that sort of threw equations at
you without much explanation. I have even seen a course called Physics for
Poets. But at least the poets taking it  knew science existed and perhaps to
take it seriously when others who had studied it better shared their
results, even if they have no interest in the methods.

We routinely have people learn how to use Word Processors or Spreadsheets
with no clue on how to build such a thing or anything about the Object
models used within or even knowing there is such a thing. Do they need to
know how to use the embedded methods to extend things with Visual Basic or
Javascript? They like getting closer to a WYSIWYG interface that handles
most of their usual needs and perhaps farm out harder things to experts when
needed.

So what if you teach some aspects of python that are needed all over, like
how to make things conditional or in a loop, but not how to make every
possible data structure. What if you deliberately do not teach functional
aspects of the language at first or ever? For some people that is enough to
enable them to then use additional instructions on how to find prepared and
tested chunks to use, even if not always optimally or efficiently. For those
who really want to be programmers, that still may actually be enough if
their task is to work using the tools we have developed, not in making new
tools from scratch. Quite a bit of programming today consists of reading
manual pages and cobbling together chunks that together do the job.

But obviously I would choose the classes where I understood more. Many here
would. But where does it end? Do most of us know how compilers or
interpreters get built or do we just work on top of existing implementations
others make available? Can you build an operating system from Scratch or
make microchips to run them on?

If the goal is Computer USE literacy, I think python has more than enough if
you include the modules that make hard things easy.

Just a thought. Admittedly it is hard these days to give a homework
assignment when the student can find a trivial way to get the result and not
do the hard work.


-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avigross=verizon.net at python.org> On
Behalf Of Dennis Lee Bieber
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:45 AM
To: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: New Python implementation

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:03:33 +0000, Alan Gauld via Python-list
<python-list at python.org> declaimed the following:

>On 16/02/2021 07:35, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 16.02.21 um 06:36 schrieb dn:
>>> Pascal's value as a teaching language was that it embodied many 
>>> aspects of structured programming, and like Python, consisted of a 
>>> limited range of items which could be learned very quickly
>> 
>> ROFL. Maybe that was true for Python when it was first invented. 
>> Today it is not "a few simple things". Even just the core language,
>
>Python v1 was a good teaching language. v2 complicated it a bit but it 
>was still usable. v3 is no longer a good teaching language (unless 
>maybe you are teaching CompSci at university.)
>
>In fact in v3 things are so complex that I seriously considered 
>dropping Python as the core language for my programming tutorial.
>Until I started looking for an alternative, and there really isn't 
>anything much better. At least not that can also be used for real 
>projects once you've learned it.

	Depending upon the course intentions, I'd say Python is useful for
teaching general programming and getting to usable real-world programs.

	For CompSci /theory/, OTOH, Python has too much built in, and would
get in the way of having someone implement things like linked-lists, deques,
hashed structures -- ie; the stuff that lies behind all those Python
built-ins. Pascal, Modula-2 (or is it up to 3 now), or one of the other
system programming languages: Edison from
https://www.amazon.com/Programming-personal-computer-Brinch-Hansen/dp/013730
2673
	Implement a hashed-head multiple-linked list using Kemeny&Kurtz
level BASIC! (My algorithms instructor allowed the class to use any language
on that he could read -- so FORTRAN, BASIC, Pascal, Sigma Meta-Symbol,
COBOL... No Snobol, LISP, or APL -- for that final project: a phone book
directory/look-up system). Interestingly, I've only seen a hashed-head
multiple-linked list structure used in one real world application: The
Commodore Amiga file system.


-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
	wlfraed at ix.netcom.com    http://wlfraed.microdiversity.freeddns.org/

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list