5 Jan
2012
5 Jan
'12
3:15 p.m.
On 3 January 2012 04:16, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
On 02/01/12 10:00 PM, Mouse wrote:
I'm not convinced that's a problem.
Scheme has no more theoretical load than BASIC.
So in the same breath that you say that BASIC's syntax is sufficiently
unlike the syntax of modern languages to render it unsuitable for
teaching, you feel that the non-algebraic syntax of Scheme is not a
hindrance to teaching beginners?
You'd take someone who did not know that "25% of ?8000" meant (
(8000/100)*25 )
i.e.
?8000 ? 100 = ?80
?80 ? 25 = ?2000
... and you'd present them with
(+ 1 2 3 4)
evaluating to 10
As equivalent to
a = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
... or
(defun factorial (n)
(if (<= n 1)
1
(* n (factorial (- n 1)))))
If so, you are on crack or something, because I cannot believe that a
smart, sane person with experience of children and random members of
the public would believe this, I really can't.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
I consider BASIC to be an excellent beginner's introduction to "what
is a program?", etc., so long as they are exposed to other languages
immediately after grasping the basic principles.
Well, there is the "small" problem that BASIC syntax, data types, and
control structures relate poorly to modern languages and even less to
powerful abstractions. What's wrong with Scheme? ?Or at worst,
Python?
The same thing that was wrong with the New Math: you don't dump the
full load of theory on a beginner, not unless you want a very confused
beginner, or you have the incredible luck to get a Ramanujan or Knuth
as a student (and if so, honestly, the best thing anyone can do is to
get the hell out of the way).