On Nov 22, 12:28 pm, namekuseijin <namekusei...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 nov, 14:47, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:40 -0800 (PST), toby > > > <t...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote: > > >This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young > > >people with little exposure to computers) how to program in various > > >paradigms could produce interesting primary evidence. Pity that this > > >isn't examined widely and systematically. We could learn something > > >about how to teach programming and design languages this way, don't > > >you agree? > > > I do. > > > A study such as that would be more useful than how to teach languages > > - it could be useful in teaching other stuff as well. > > yes, pity most children are (used to be) taught Basic first. > > Also, with a study like this, it's likely some children would be > taught some lame language and others would be taught some "industrial > strength" language and still others would be taught some esoteric > language.
This is not worse than the status quo, which does exactly that, but without paying attention to outcomes. What I am proposing is doing it systematically, with observation. Then we can learn something. > I'm not sure it'd prove as much as we are hoping for -- as > they are all Turing equivalent and the kids would be able to > eventually do the task asked for in any of them -- but I'm sure some > of those children would be mentally hurt for all their life. Poor > pioneers :p > > JH, nice to have you back! :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
