[Edu-sig] IDLE wish (was Edu-sig Digest, Vol 31, Issue 16)

[Arthur]

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: dethe.elza at gmail.com [mailto:dethe.elza at gmail.com] On 
> >Behalf Of Dethe Elza
> >Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 5:45 PM
> >To: Gregor Lingl
> >Cc: Arthur; edu-sig at python.org
> >Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] IDLE wish (was Edu-sig Digest, Vol 
> >31, Issue 16)
> >
> >I think it would be a real shame if this discussion moved 
> >off-list, and a failure of the lists purpose.  Turtle 
> >graphics have been a mainstay of computers in education for 
> >years and have proved their worth in that regard.  The 
> >turtle.py module is minimal, and isn't going to be taken out 
> >of the standard distribution just because Arthur or Kirby 
> >don't like it.

Have said 4 times now that I have no problem with it in the standard
distribution.  

And never said I didn't like it - as it is, i.e. with its current scope.

Why does my position here keep getting misrepresented? 

And no, I am not suggesting we don't fix bugs.

>  No-one is proposing that turtle.py be an 
> >end-all-be-all super turtle tool, obviously something like 
> >that would be more appropriate for the Cheeseshop, and there 
> >is plenty of room for such tools.

You know where the line is - I don't.  But we seem to agree there is a line
to be watched.

> >
> >Arthur, I for one have no trouble with your opinions and 
> >feelings, but I'm tired of your claims of persecution ("I am 
> >perfectly aware that my approach to these discussion is not 
> >likely to get me liked.") and your attacks on others who are 
> >using this list to have a genuine discussion of python in 
> >education ("Are you an appointed or self-appointed redactor 
> >of all that is Turtle in the world of Python?").  


Long history of not feeling like I am working within a meritocracy.  Nobody
could find it in their heart to support me on the contention that an IDLE
that cannot run a setup.py is something to be addressed.  Perhaps if I found
some support when I try to push a point that is straight-forward sensible
(nothing seems to happen without *some* pushing), I'd be less reactive in a
discussion that had some unavoidable level of controversy.

> >
> >Back to the subject of improved turtles, I think there could 
> >be a two-pronged approach. The first prong would be to 
> >provide incremental improvements to the existing turtle.py 
> >(and possibly IDLE) within the standard distribution, while 
> >the second would be to provide one or more advanced turtle 
> >environments, possibly interfacing with 3D
> >(VPython) or actual robot turtles (PYRO).  I'd love to see 
> >other alternatives to Tkinter build or advanced as well (I 
> >may take this on for PyObjC, and PyCard already has this for 
> >wxPython).

If I take my boyscout hat off, and put on my businessman's hat - it seems to
me that a vpython in the standard distribution would be a much more
significant thing to think and work toward if we are concerned about
Python's popularity and its utility in the classroom.  Mostly because it
actually highlights some of Python's indigenous strengths - not only
providing friendly access to high performance graphics in C++, but doing so
in such a way that the C++ graphical objects can be subclassed and extended
in pure Python.  Seems to me - with my businessman's hat on - that one wants
to showcase those kinds of facilities.  It's competitive out there. And as
useful as a turtles might be in the classroom, there are many turtles out
there, and there is nothing indigenous to Python about them. Get Python -
its turtles are pretty OK. My businessman doesn't get excited.


Art