ActionScript as a teaching language

[Paul King]

On 1 Jan 2006 at 21:12, D. Hugh Redelmeier (D. Hugh Redelmeier <tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org>) spaketh these wourdes:

> | From: Paul King <pking123-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg at public.gmane.org>
> 
<many worthwhile remarks, snipped for brevity>
> | 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 was shown Python by a farirly keen programmer several years ago, and I remember 
that it seems that instead of parentheses or begin/end, Python appears to use 
only indentation to indicate scoping. While as a programmer I thought it was kind 
of neat, and may even force a bit of good form into programming (imagine a 
printout of a nicely-indented program being handed in for once), I still think 
that a beginner needs something less subtle to see where variables have an effect 
and where they don't, even sacrificing good form (they would still have to have 
good form to get better marks). That may be just me.

> | 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.

The curriculum is not language-specific, although I also suspect that many parts 
of the curriculum are being ignored as well. It is not a core course, and so 
students need to be attracted to it. They don't "need" to take it.

As for there being a problem with the curriculum, as far as I can see, it simply 
consists of  the things that any beginning computer science student ought to 
know. Such as it is, it still takes kids who are good in math and problem-solving 
to become good in this course, in my view. So, while this course is seen as an 
elective (and it is), it is not a cake-walk for the average CS student. Most 
other elective courses tend to be light, but not computer science.

The LCSI link seems to be a good one. I like the fact that it says that these are 
*constructivist* tools, since constructivism is now the new educational "flavour 
of the month". I am curious as to how they see programming as being covered in a 
constructivist manner. I would have thought that programming itself is 
constructivist anyway, regardless of the language. CS is inherently hands-on, and 
when you have a bug or syntax error, you learn from your own mistakes. You can't 
get more constructivist than that.

> 
> | 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