From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,71d1fdde81c072f8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Raymond Calande <ray.calande@lmco.com>
Subject: Re: Computer Programming for Everybody?
Date: 1999/09/10
Message-ID: <37D975E4.C2E15029@lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 523543477
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7rbkm4$pn6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
To: Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Lockheed Martin Corporation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-09-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I've been reading about this in the comp.lang.tcl newsgroup. One additional
fact
related to DARPA choosing Python is that its author was directly involved in
its selection. At least that's how it was described in comp.lang.tcl.

Ted Dennison wrote:

> Today I came across a proposal that got DARPA funding for an initiative
> to teach *all* elementary-schoolers to program just like they are all
> taught geometry. Its an interesting concept, which does have some merit.
>
> The language that they propose to teach the kiddies is ...wait for it...
> python.
>
> It seems an odd choice, but I figgured they'd have a good reason for it.
> So I found the report (
> http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e.html ) and skimmed down to where
> they were justifying it. I was rather dismayed at the weak logic used.
> Here's a sample:
>   "We have anecdotal evidence that Python is a good language to teach as
> a first programming language."
>   "The Python community has seen many reports from individuals who
> taught their children programming using Python."
>   "Table 1 on the next page is a (highly subjective) chart comparing a
> few relevant aspects of Python to some other languages. From
> this table (and our experience), we conclude that Python is a good first
> choice for teaching..."
>
> The "highly subjective" statement above is the author's, not mine. But
> after looking at the chart given, I'd have to agree.
>
> To make matter worse from our perspective, they didn't even bother to
> mention Ada in their report, even as a strawman. Pascal wasn't mentioned
> either, even though a cursory amount of research would show that those
> are two of the languages most commonly taught to freshman CS students.
>
> They even go so far as to admit some inadaquacies that Ada doesn't have.
> For instance:
> "We already have some evidence of where changes might be necessary.
> Prof. Randy Pausch at Carnegie Mellon University (see
> below) has conducted some usability studies of Python within their
> limited problem domain. Their users seemed most confused by
> the case sensitivity of Python's variable names..."
>
> Any way, I'm curious what the instructors here think of this. Do you
> think Python might really be a better choice for grade-schoolers? Am I
> overreacting here?
>
> (In all fairness I should have crosposted this to comp.lang.python to
> give those folks a chance to defend themselves. But I don't want to
> have to sift good information from the sea of flames that language
> comparison crossposts always generate.)
>
> --
> T.E.D.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.