[Microbit-Python] Accessor API design on the micro:bit

[Nicholas H.Tollervey]

This also makes me wonder about descriptor v accessor in other parts of
the API. For example, could we do this?

>>> microbit.pin0  # digital read
1
>>> microbit.pin0  # analog read
234
>>> microbit.pin0 = 0  # digital set
>>> microbit.pin0 = 234  # analog set (0...255)

Not sure whether digital should be 1/0 or True/False. What's the most
widespread convention here? I'm thinking of True/False because that
makes it obvious that the pin is digital rather than it's simply a very
low reading on an analog in.

Thoughts..? Does this make sense..?

N.


On 01/11/15 14:16, Nicholas H.Tollervey wrote:
> OK... what an interesting discussion. :-)
> 
> Then I remembered I had a "captive" 11yo in my home! So I asked him
> which one he preferred (and videoed the discussion). Here's the exchange
> with my son, over Sunday morning breakfast, in all its glory:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w4I_xEwlcA
> 
> Put simply he prefers accelerometer.x over .get_x() and .x() because
> it's less typing.
> 
> Emboldened by this feedback I've visited some of his buddies this
> morning (I totally realise this is not at all scientific) to get their
> opinion.
> 
> I'm quite surprised by the results - they agree with Sam: ".x" is the
> unanimous verdict for the best way to express this for all three 11yo
> I've surveyed. I was expecting ".get_x()" to win because it was obvious
> what it was doing.
> 
> But, for example, Max explained that he didn't like all the "weird
> symbols" and mentioned that, "I don't get 'get', isn't it just 'x'? Why
> do I need to 'get' it"..? (Max didn't want to be videoed.)
> 
> Lewis, (whose video is here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyec2VqYwJs) also likes the simplicity
> of ".x" and felt that all the others just looked complicated.
> 
> So, the evidence I've collected so far appears to support Larry and that
> we should trust the heuristic of "simplicity wins".
> 
> Once again, I totally realise this is not scientific in any way. But I
> thought I'd ask those 11yo I had within "range" this morning because
> they're our target audience.
> 
> I've been booked to do some gardening this afternoon... but will return
> this evening.
> 
> I look forward to reading all your thoughts. :-)
> 
> N.
> 
> On 31/10/15 20:08, Carol Willing wrote:
>> While I am joining this discussion after a couple of months of history,
>> I am going to step back for a moment and ask a simple question:
>>
>> Does this have to be a decision between x, x(), get_x()?
>>
>> For the accelerometer (not necessarily all other functionality, but
>> since the accelerometer is built into the chip and accessible without
>> soldering anything, it will be used by many), could we support all three?
>>
>> If I was an 11 year old with access to Google, I could find resources
>> appropriate for an 11 year old that use all three of these approaches:
>> Young Coders workshop, Adafruit/Sparkfun, MicroPython tutorials, Python
>> for Kids book, and others.
>>
>> If I didn't have access to Google, I, as a student, would use `help` or
>> example programs to model what I would choose. It's critical for the
>> educational setting for the approach to be consistent within an example
>> program. While in a perfect world that might imply consistent across all
>> example programs.
>>
>> Yet, we know that there are several approaches to programming that lend
>> the same result but with differing implementations.
>>
>> It seems to me if there is space to support all three for the
>> accelerometer that would make reasonable sense. We can tailor the help
>> message to guide to the desired approach; yet, all three will work for
>> the student whether they are using a recommended approach or something
>> that they googled.
>>
>> Based on my experience teaching a wide spectrum of children, I do think
>> with gentle instruction all levels will be able to use the accelerometer.
>>
>> Warmly,
>> Carol
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *Carol Willing*
>> Developer | Willing Consulting
>> https://willingconsulting.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Microbit mailing list
>> Microbit at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/microbit
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Microbit mailing list
> Microbit at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/microbit
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/microbit/attachments/20151101/69704ab5/attachment.sig>