2009/10/28 Alf P. Steinbach <al...@start.no> > * tm: > > On 28 Okt., 07:52, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote: >> >>> [Cross-posted comp.programming and comp.lang.python] >>> >> >> Looking at your topic '(Python in Windows)', without taking a >> glimpse at your actual introduction, I have the following to say: >> I think it is not a good idea to teach programming with a focus >> on a specific operating system. Programming should IMHO be taught >> without reference to an operating system. Otherwise you just teach >> how to write unportable programs. >> > > I think you're trolling a little. :-) > > Without reference to an OS you can't address any of the issues that a > beginner has to grapple with, including most importantly tool usage, without > which it's not even possible to get started, but also, very importantly, a > file system. > > Learning programming without tools and without using files (or only using > the common denominator for file systems in OSes X, Y and Z) is sort of > vacuous... > > In addition there's the motivational factor. > > Doing only academic examples, utilizing only a language's more or less > portable functionality, is very de-motivational, while the opposite is > motivational. > > > > > Hi. >>> >>> I may finally have found the perfect language for a practically oriented >>> introductory book on programming, namely Python. >>> >> >> What is considered 'perfect' depends on the point of view. Languages >> have assets and drawbacks and I don't even use the term 'perfect' >> for my own language. :-) There is always room to improve. Some of >> the features I consider important are discussed here: >> >> http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm >> >> C++ was way too complex for the novice, JScript and C# suffered from too >>> fast-changing specifications and runtime environment, Java, well, nothing >>> particularly wrong but it's sort of too large and unwieldy and >>> inefficient. >>> >> >> While many people consider Java inefficient they do so in comparison >> to C/C++. I doubt that Java is inefficient compared to most >> interpreted languages. >> >> I don't know whether this will ever become an actual book. I hope so! >>> >>> But since I don't know much Python -- I'm *learning* Python as I write >>> >> >> Normally I prefer books written by people who already know the >> stuff they are writing about. I would consider that it is not a good >> selling argument when a book was written to *learn* a language. :-) >> > > I'd like to make the statement that I think the opposite is true - a novice book has higher quality to a novice if the author himself learnt the language/programming while writing the book. The author will then have a much better chance at catching the "hard to understand" concepts a novice is confronted with, instead of trying to shine with his technical skills in the language/programming.
IMHO :-) Yes, it would be silly to write a book or whatever about Python. This text > is primarily about programming, at the novice level, not about the Python > language. The programming language is only a vehicle. > > However, as a vehicle the language needs to be suited for transport of the > novice. :-) > > And it seems that Python is very well suited for that. > > > > Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net >> > > I'm not familiar with Seed, sorry. > > > Cheers, & thanks for your thoughts, > > - Alf > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- twitter.com/olofb olofb.wordpress.com olofb.wordpress.com/tag/english
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
