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: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Computer Programming for Everybody?
Date: 1999/09/12
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909121557150.1131-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 524245832
References: <7rbkm4$pn6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 937177934 230 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-09-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, 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?

Better than what? Ada? Yes. Python is a lot easier to learn than Ada, IMO. 
Of course, I'm not a grade-schooler :-). 

> Am I overreacting here?

Yes. If you were advocating Logo or Smalltalk or some other language which 
had "kid friendliness" as a design goal, you might have a point. 

My choice would probably be Scheme. Maybe Unicon when it is finally ready. 
But Python is OK. Ada requires a bit more sophistication, and is also 
lacking when it comes to interactive environments. Interactivity seems
important for teaching to youngsters

-- Brian