On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 8:28:23 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Rick Johnson wrote: > > A better *FIRST* example would be > > something like this: > > > > def add(x, y): > > return x + y > > > > When teaching a student about functions, the first step is > > to help them understand *WHY* they need to use functions, > > and the second is to teach them how to define a function. In > > my simplistic example, the practical necessity of functions > > can be easily intuited by the student without the > > distractions... > > ... except that you've made your first function so trivial that it > doesn't need to be a function. How does that help anyone understand > why they need functions? What's the point of writing "add(5, 7)" > rather than "5 + 7"? So you need something else around the outside to > justify even having a function at all.
Same logic applies to fibonacci also — “Why the f___ are these old fogies teaching us fibonacci and this other crap instead of IOT/Big-Data/how-to-write-an-app/cloud…” or whatever else is hot And if you think this is a theoretical strawman it just means youve not taught enough to know that motivation is at least big a problem as any specific technique/algorithm/language/technology/etc So yes Rick's example has slightly less motivation than fib But if you are focussing on technique its better than the fib — at least it does not contain a blithering print — a point I am sure you will agree with Chris <wink> -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
