ActionScript as a teaching language

[Marc Lijour]

On Sunday 01 January 2006 21:12, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: Paul King <pking123-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg at public.gmane.org>
> |
> | > Also Logo, Lisp and Prolog can be said to be birds of a feather (with
> | > Logo requiring the least typing, followed by Prolog and followed by
> | > Lisp after a large gap).
> |
> | Grade 11s would be more worried about whether the concepts I am trying to
> | teach will make sense to them.
>
> I don't know what concepts you are trying to teach.  But Logo is a
> great introductory language.  It was designed for young kids
> (elementary school).  Without condescension.
>
> I showed Logo to my kids.  They thought it was OK, but preferred BASIC
> because it was more real (there is no accounting for taste).
>
> Logo is a very powerful language.  I know people who have done systems
> programming in it (including me).  It could be considered simplified
> LISP.
>
> The most important commercial educational Logo is from LCSI (an Quebec
> company).  It is inside their "MicroWorlds" products.  I've not played
> with them in a decade, but I think highly of them:
> 	http://www.microworlds.com/
>
> The Ministry of Education might have a site license for Ontario (not
> sure).

Try this:
http://www.osapac.org/bb.asp

>
> | Whether the code is more concise in one language or
> | another is hardly here nor there.
>
> If the only difference is concision, the shorter program is clearer.
>
> One way of making a language concise is to add powerful and possibly
> obscure features (think of APL or C expressions).  That requires more
> learning, and is probably a bad feature for your purposes.
>
> Another way is to leave out crap (useless details).  This makes the
> language more teachable.  Logo does this.  So does Python.
>
> | Apart from that I don't know of any Computer
> | Science program on the planet, even at the university level, who would
> | use these as teaching languages (maybe in third-year, and only because
> | there is no better language for the particular job in that course).
>
> I was involved with a first year U of T course that used Logo.  It was
> designed to be a terminal course -- for those not going on to further
> CS.
>
> Introductory programming at MIT used Scheme (a version of LISP).  The
> text is excellent: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.
> This was definitely not terminal.
>
> | For example, I have to teach data types, and afterward teach functions,
> | procedures, and scoping rules.
>
> Some of those ideas don't exist or are degenerate in Logo.  That's
> part of what makes it simple.
>
> | Turing has always been a trusty language that has
> | made these concepts clear and easy to teach.
>
> I like Turing.  A well done "conventional" language.
>
> | But since Turing is not "sexy"
> | enough,
>
> I've chatted with a number of students who hated it and wanted a real
> language like C.  Just like my kids wanted BASIC.  The students are wrong,
> as far as I can tell, but what are you going to do?
>
> | This is why I wouldn't teach Python, because the scoping would not be
> | obvious enough.
>
> Why is it not obvious enough?  I admit to knowing too little about Python.
>
> | I wouldn't teach C/C++, because it is too loosely-typed.
>
> Too many razor blades in that package.
>
> | Java is a little
> | better, and is also taught alternatively with ActionScript, because its
> | typing and scoping rules are more sensible. I would personally favour
> | Java.
>
> Java seems to be reasonable.  Not inspired, but reasonable.  If being
> widely available and used matters, it might be the best choice.
>
> Perhaps the problem is the curriculum.  Without knowing it, I really
> cannot be sure how you can satisfy it.  I do suspect that many
> teachers are just ignoring it.
>
> | Sounds great, but if there is ever anything like screen problems, that
> | tends to translate into classroom management problems.
>
> Squeak is a natural successor to Logo.  The Squeak universe is much
> more complex and rich.  This may not be a good thing from your
> standpoint.  You can tailor it if you want (eg. cut it down).
>
> The main version is (was?) not a browser plugin.  There surely is a
> version that works OK for you.
>
> I don't like the fact that (last I checked) Squeak uses a busy loop so
> it is always using some of your CPU even when idle.  I admit to being
> overly picky about this.
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml