Groups > comp.lang.python > #90304 > unrolled thread

Instead of deciding between Python or Lisp for a programming intro course...What about an intro course that uses BOTH? Good idea?

Started by	Chris Seberino <cseberino@gmail.com>
First post	2015-05-10 13:43 -0700
Last post	2015-05-11 09:29 -0700
Articles	8 on this page of 68 — 17 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#90319

From	zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com>
Date	2015-05-10 18:03 -0700
Message-ID	<c95dd623-a2fe-4d43-8c94-7a12abd6f5de@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#90304

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 3:43:25 PM UTC-5, Chris Seberino wrote:
> 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?
> 
> I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest language
> to get beginners up and running writing code due to the extremely minimal simple syntax.
> 
> I'm thinking half way into the semester, instead of moving into intermediate Scheme, perhaps that is a good time to switch to Python?
> 
> Would a little strong intro to 2 nice languages in one semester be
> same/good/worse/better than just 1?

No.  LISP-like languages are very different beasts, requiring different mind-sets.  It's like going from geometry to arithmetic.

Or trying to teach OS/2 (which had great abstract ideas) and switching to Linux without covering the architecture and engineering underneath them.

mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90322

From	zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com>
Date	2015-05-10 18:29 -0700
Message-ID	<a079d583-5744-4d50-8a42-d91ee83d561c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#90319

> > 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?
> 
> No.  LISP-like languages are very different beasts, requiring different mind-sets.  It's like going from geometry to arithmetic.
> 
> 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, in theory, every programming language could be made into any other, the architecture in which to do so is completely different, so it misleads the programmer.

To fit LISP into a Turing Machine architecture (what most every procedural programming language and most every computer sold is/utilizes) requires a very 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90331

From	Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Date	2015-05-11 12:11 +1000
Message-ID	<mailman.336.1431310324.12865.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#90304

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Chris Seberino <cseberino@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest language
> to get beginners up and running writing code due to the extremely minimal simple syntax.
>
> I'm thinking half way into the semester, instead of moving into intermediate Scheme, perhaps that is a good time to switch to Python?
>
> Would a little strong intro to 2 nice languages in one semester be
> same/good/worse/better than just 1?

I strongly recommend learning multiple languages, but not at the cost
of proper comprehension of one of them. Pick one and get started with
it, and once you have some basic competence, pick up another; you'll
gain a better appreciation for both that way.

As to which one first... I always recommend Python as a first
language, due to the lack of boilerplate and the simple layout. But if
you have a background that makes LISPy languages a better fit for you,
then by all means, take Scheme first. For most people I work with, an
imperative language makes a better first fit; most people understand
the concept of giving someone a series of instructions and expecting
them to be performed in sequence down the page, but functional
languages take more getting used to. But if you're already accustomed
to a functional style - maybe a heavy mathematical background - then
LISP-family languages will be a logical extension from that.

Eric Raymond recommends [1] learning five languages with distinctly
different styles: Python, C/C++, Java, Perl, and LISP. Of the five, I
would recommend leaving C and Perl for later, as neither is
particularly friendly to a new programmer; the other three you could
pick up in any order, and there are commercial courses using all of
them. (I personally don't think Java offers much that other languages
don't, and haven't used it for anything since the days when Java
applets were the only decent way to embed executable code in web
browsers; these days, I'd much rather do everything in Python or Pike.
But that doesn't mean Java isn't worth learning.) The more languages
you learn, the better you'll be as a programmer - but don't skimp on
one to pick up another.

ChrisA

[1] http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#skills1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90343

From	Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
Date	2015-05-11 13:59 +1000
Message-ID	<55502919$0$12997$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#90304

On Mon, 11 May 2015 06:43 am, Chris Seberino wrote:

> I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest language
> to get beginners up and running writing code due to the extremely minimal
> simple syntax.

Do you believe that learning syntax is the hardest part for beginners to get
past?

If so, then perhaps you should start by teaching beginners machine code,
since the syntax is very simple: any sequence of hexadecimal digits is
syntactically valid machine code. If you can teach people to use
0123...9ABCDEF then you have just taught them everything they need to know
about the syntax.

*wink*

The point is, syntax can be *too* minimal, as well as too heavyweight.

-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90345

From	Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>
Date	2015-05-10 21:42 -0700
Message-ID	<281c0f90-8353-4480-93d3-9c656505cc61@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#90343

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 9:29:31 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 06:43 am, Chris Seberino wrote:
> 
> > I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest language
> > to get beginners up and running writing code due to the extremely minimal
> > simple syntax.
> 
> Do you believe that learning syntax is the hardest part for beginners to get
> past?

You seem to be asking a rhetorical question.

I regard it as a basic koan in CS
http://blog.languager.org/2015/04/poverty-universality-structure-0.html#fundamentalKoan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90381

From	Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com>
Date	2015-05-11 09:04 -0500
Message-ID	<mailman.364.1431353048.12865.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#90345

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Don't CS departments still have a computer languages survey class? When I
was a graduate student at Iowa in the early 80s, we had one. (It was, as I
recall, an upper level undergrad course. I didn't get into CS until
graduate school, so went back to filled in some missing stuff.) I don't
recall all the languages we touched on, but ISTR there were five or six. I
know we hit Lisp (today, it would likely be Scheme), and probably APL
(today it would probably be Python+Pandas, MATLAB, R, or something similar).

Skip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90386

From	Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Date	2015-05-11 14:35 +0000
Message-ID	<miqeo1$r2r$2@reader1.panix.com>
In reply to	#90381

On 2015-05-11, Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> wrote:

> Don't CS departments still have a computer languages survey class? When I
> was a graduate student at Iowa in the early 80s, we had one. (It was, as I
> recall, an upper level undergrad course. I didn't get into CS until
> graduate school, so went back to filled in some missing stuff.) I don't
> recall all the languages we touched on, but ISTR there were five or six. I
> know we hit Lisp (today, it would likely be Scheme), and probably APL
> (today it would probably be Python+Pandas, MATLAB, R, or something similar).

There was a similar class at both Iowa State and University of MN. You
learned a half-dozen languages in a single quarter.  IIRC, at ISU we
did Lisp, Prolog, APL, Snobol and a couple others.  The main
pedagogical language at the time was Pascal, but we also learned
FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, and a couple three assembly languages (PDP-11,
VAX, Z80, 6502).  If you were a computer enineering major instead of
computer science, you also leared a hardware description language.  At
the time it was AHPL.

More recent gruaduates only seem to know one language (Java or C++)
and are completely baffled by anything else.

And don't get me started on that damned noise they call music...

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! !  Now I understand
                                  at               advanced MICROBIOLOGY and
                              gmail.com            th' new TAX REFORM laws!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90410

From	Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>
Date	2015-05-11 09:29 -0700
Message-ID	<a74be458-717e-4e02-b5cc-cb151a31ad0f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#90386

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 8:05:56 PM UTC+5:30, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2015-05-11, Skip Montanaro  wrote:
> 
> > Don't CS departments still have a computer languages survey class? When I
> > was a graduate student at Iowa in the early 80s, we had one. (It was, as I
> > recall, an upper level undergrad course. I didn't get into CS until
> > graduate school, so went back to filled in some missing stuff.) I don't
> > recall all the languages we touched on, but ISTR there were five or six. I
> > know we hit Lisp (today, it would likely be Scheme), and probably APL
> > (today it would probably be Python+Pandas, MATLAB, R, or something similar).
> 
> There was a similar class at both Iowa State and University of MN. You
> learned a half-dozen languages in a single quarter.  IIRC, at ISU we
> did Lisp, Prolog, APL, Snobol and a couple others.  The main
> pedagogical language at the time was Pascal, but we also learned
> FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, and a couple three assembly languages (PDP-11,
> VAX, Z80, 6502).  If you were a computer enineering major instead of
> computer science, you also leared a hardware description language.  At
> the time it was AHPL.

These survey of PLs courses are a travesty.
At best students learn nothing
At worst they imagine they learnt something.
IMHO if you dont get some feel for the language, something about its 'zen',
you should not be allowed to say you know anything about it.
Getting a grade for it ensures the exact opposite.

[I recently heard of a course whose exam papers had questions like:
"Name 7 keywords in C++
]

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

csiph-web

Instead of deciding between Python or Lisp for a programming intro course...What about an intro course that uses *BOTH*? Good idea?

Contents

#90319

#90322

#90331

#90343

#90345

#90381

#90386

#90410

Instead of deciding between Python or Lisp for a programming intro course...What about an intro course that uses BOTH? Good idea?