X-Received: by 10.236.198.165 with SMTP id v25mr15026119yhn.28.1431307764621; Sun, 10 May 2015 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.19.194 with SMTP id h2mr37665obe.41.1431307764563; Sun, 10 May 2015 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!z60no6559771qgd.0!news-out.google.com!kd3ni13483igb.0!nntp.google.com!m20no10168195iga.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.39.100.167; posting-account=_mq9AwoAAADE_DU6vx1SR9Jw8c-yNCiv NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.39.100.167 References: <02dba7aa-8466-4937-a8d8-82ffd03e5568@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Instead of deciding between Python or Lisp for a programming intro course...What about an intro course that uses *BOTH*? Good idea? From: zipher Injection-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 01:29:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2502 X-Received-Body-CRC: 614582925 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:90322 > > Instead of learning only Scheme or only Python for a one semester intro > > course, what about learning BOTH? Maybe that could somehow > > get the benefits of both? >=20 > No. LISP-like languages are very different beasts, requiring different m= ind-sets. It's like going from geometry to arithmetic. >=20 > Or trying to teach OS/2 (which had great abstract ideas) and switching to= Linux without covering the architecture and engineering underneath them. Another point. You're allowing Church`s Thesis to misinform you. While, i= n theory, every programming language could be made into any other, the arch= itecture in which to do so is completely different, so it misleads the prog= rammer. To fit LISP into a Turing Machine architecture (what most every procedural = programming language and most every computer sold is/utilizes) requires a v= ery obscene translation table in the TM. I'm not even sure that it's been = analyzed, because the TM has no concept of a stack. Any PhD's know of who's actually make a stack on the TM? Usually the tape = itself holds the stack, but with LISP architecture, this isn't the natural = fit. Mark