On 6/08/19 12:04 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:54 PM DL Neil <pythonl...@danceswithmice.info> wrote:
On 3/08/19 5:50 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:36 PM DL Neil <pythonl...@danceswithmice.info> wrote:
On 3/08/19 4:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
...
Sometimes there can be magical firewall penetration tricks that allow
the traffic to go peer-to-peer after an initial handshake with some
central server, but this has its own problems. On any network that I
control, such tricks are disabled; if you want to listen to
connections from the outside world, you get my explicit permission and
an actual line in the firewall configs.
Here is the point where I'll bow-out. This sort of stuff is what
NetAdmins are for! Better minds than mine...
Also, there are scenarios when both (of the pair) might be contributing
by 'coding' concurrently, eg one writing tests and the other code, or
one writing one class and the other a second. (but you can debate if
that is "pair-programming")
No, that's not pair programming. That's collaboration on a project,
but it's not the sort of thing where you need to see the other
person's screen.
Agreed. "Pair-programming" seemed the closest, commonly-used,
professional term to describe how one might be remotely-useful (pun!?)
during the PUG's Coding Evening.
It seems reasonable that if folk are working-together yet on separate
components, when they link the two components, both being able to see
'the same thing' would be a natural approach, eg one writing the tests
and another the code - what happens when the tests run?
Anyway, this PUG mtg is going to be an 'experience'.
(I'll try (almost) anything once!)
...
Is it acceptable to train folk to code (in a particular language)
without also covering the likely tools they will (also) use?
So with Python, during the first lesson we could jump straight into a
one-line print( "hello world" ) program using the REPL. However, an
editor will be employed as soon as we want our code to persist. So
should we (immediately) promote the use of a professional editor/IDE, eg
PyCharm, Sublime Text, Codium, Eclipse; or a 'traditional' character
editing tool, eg Vi, emacs?
(please no 'religious wars' just because I mentioned both in the same
sentence!)
At my work, we instruct students on how to set up one particular tech
stack, including an editor, linter, source control, etc, etc. We're
clear with them that these are not the only options, but for the sake
of bootcamp time pressures, we aren't going to show them any others.
Depending on what you're trying to do, it MAY be acceptable to teach
just the language. But that won't make someone employable on its own.
Like everything, "it depends" :)
Indeed!
As a matter of interest (and if you don't mind sharing), which packages
are included in the organisation's student "stack"?
(again: no 'judgement', please)
How 'expensive' or distracting is it, merely in terms of trainees
failing to follow the installation/configuration instructions?
Do you find 'my first program' (when trainees are first required to use
the 'stack') to be a major failure/frustration/drop-out point? To what
degree might that be caused by the trainee realising that (s)he has to
turn 'book knowledge' into coding-action, ie 'the real world', and how
much might be the 'cost' of those tools?
--
Regards =dn
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
