[Edu-sig] re: Terminology question: just operator overriding?

[Arthur]

Kirby Urner wrote:

> 
> Mostly it's about how this thinking in terms of objects is
> generic and powerful enough to deserve a bigger footprint
> in K-12, and that traditional math concepts might be well
> served by these same metaphors (math objects, defined by
> class blueprints, with instances containing specific state
> info -- e.g. fractions, polynomials, vectors etc.).  Python
> makes these metaphors concrete.

Sounds sensible.

Seems to me if we were satisfied with very targetted introduction  of 
well-established concepts that have their roots in programming (as 
applied mathematics) and intergrate the use of those concepts well with 
existing curricula at the K-12 level - very much along the lines you 
suggest, it seems to me - well, there might be some measurable upside to 
it all.

It is conceptually sound, and does not even depend, necessarily, on the 
availability of a machine.  Though no question, that would be better.

Small is beautiful.

Art