why did MIT drop scheme for python in intro to computing?
gavino
Paddy3118
George Neuner
wrote:
>why?
What makes you think they did?
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
namekuseijin
sche...@gmail.com
Because they did not want to teach "Structure and Interpretation of
R6RS" beforehand.
(lol).
Chris Rathman
substitutable for 6.001. C1 uses Python but concentrates on exercises
involving robotics. 6.001 uses Scheme via SICP. (as far as I know,
6.001 is still alive and well). The choice of language is secondary
to the material and curriculum being presented.
Harold Ancell
<Chris....@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Actually the better question is why MIT considers the
>C1 class to be substitutable for 6.001. C1 uses
>Python but concentrates on exercises involving
>robotics. 6.001 uses Scheme via SICP. (as far as I
>know, 6.001 is still alive and well).
From
http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/newcurriculum/The_New_EECS_Curriculum3.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/3bytba :
6.001 will perhaps transition to less-frequently-
offered 12-unit elective subject (but not required in
the new curriculum); some of the current content and
style will continue on in 6.01, 6.005 and elsewhere.
From what I've been told its future is very much up
in the air. It is being taught in this transitional
term, but in the new curriculum it is no longer
required or even a restricted elective.
>The choice of language is secondary to the material
>and curriculum being presented.
The beginning of 6.01, Introduction to EECS I,
originally known as C1, teaches the beginning of SICP.
Much of the SICP material is now to be taught in 6.005,
Principles of Software Development.
The last time I checked, this direct precursor of
6.170, Laboratory in Software Engineering, which
started out with CLU and now uses Java, will also be
taught using Java.
For the purposes of SICP, for the material in it that
needs to be learned by any CS/EECS major, the phrase
"Not even wrong" comes to mind. MIT is not about to
become a Javaschool, 6.01 will clearly make students
sweat blood, as 6.001 did, and is so instructor
intensive in the labs that "At least 1/4 EECS
Undergrads get to Teach!", but....
See http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/newcurriculum/index.html
or http://tinyurl.com/3954dv for the full overview of
the new curriculum.
- Harold
gnui...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:21:27 -0700, Chris Rathman
>
> >Actually the better question is why MIT considers the
> >C1 class to be substitutable for 6.001. C1 uses
> >Python but concentrates on exercises involving
> >robotics. 6.001 uses Scheme via SICP. (as far as I
> >know, 6.001 is still alive and well).
>
> Fromhttp://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/newcurriculum/The_New_EECS_Curriculum3.pdf
>
> the new curriculum.
>
> - Harold
Probably because there is not good IDE for LISP or SCHEME like
Eclipse. Probably because there are no good graphics libraries for
LISP/SCHEME. They possibly want python for transitional training to
java.
Kjetil S. Matheussen
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, gnui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Probably because there is not good IDE for LISP or SCHEME like
> Eclipse.
1. There are (drScheme is one, another one is the scheme plugin for
Eclipse)
2. Eclipse should not be used by beginners, I think. I'm current TA-ing
a java-course, and Eclipse with its limited (or at least
not easy to find) support for automatic indentation seems to be the
source of many of their problems. Better use emacs.
3. Using IDEs is an inefficient way to work. (But perhaps its funnier to
work with IDEs? Cool graphics is kind of entertaining...) Anyway,
better learn to program the real way.
> Probably because there are no good graphics libraries for
> LISP/SCHEME.
Not true.
> They possibly want python for transitional training to
> java.
>
I don't think your speculations makes very much sence.
namekuseijin
> Probably because there is not good IDE for LISP or SCHEME like
> Eclipse.
Emacs + Slime is the best IDE for any language ever. Ever.
DrScheme is rapidly progressing towards being an Emacs specifically
fit for Scheme and with nice addons by its own.
Brian Harvey
>I don't think your speculations makes very much sence.
Amen.
And, in any case, there's no need to speculate. MIT has published, on their
web site, pages and pages of rationale for the new curriculum.
The most important point, imho, is that the programming language was the
/least/ important aspect of the decision. The most important aspect was
the move to an application-based (rather than topic-based) organization
of the curriculum. The details flow out of that big shift of focus.
gnui...@hotmail.com
Where is the logic ?
python = application based ?
scheme = topic based ?
Does python have continuations ?
Is python progress or regress to the fortran style of natural
language ?
Dont they both have a great IDE in eclipse with respective plugins?
Does scheme have a gui library?
I really dont follow the logic.
Grant Edwards
> Does scheme have a gui library?
Yes. It had a far, far better Tk binding than Python.
I've used both for real-world applications, and STk was _miles_
ahead of tkinter. It was a real, native binding to the Tk
library rather than something stuck together with TCL. GUI
widgets were real Scheme objects that acted the way one
expected them to, rather than wrapped TCL objects.
However, Tk has been largely abandoned in favor of a native
GTK+ binding
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! You should all JUMP
at UP AND DOWN for TWO HOURS
visi.com while I decide on a NEW
CAREER!!
gnui...@gmail.com
Comparing apples with apples, how do you compare the scheme
gui library with wxpython ? Isnt it better than Tkinter ?
Harold Ancell
>On Oct 8, 1:23 pm, b...@cs.berkeley.edu (Brian Harvey) wrote:
>> "Kjetil S. Matheussen" <k.s.matheus...@notam02.no> writes:
>> >I don't think your speculations makes very much sence.
>> Amen.
>> And, in any case, there's no need to speculate.
>> MIT has published, on their web site, pages and
>> pages of rationale for the new curriculum.
>> The most important point, imho, is that the
>> programming language was the /least/ important
>> aspect of the decision. The most important
>> aspect was the move to an application-based
>> (rather than topic-based) organization of the
>> curriculum. The details flow out of that big
>> shift of focus.
>[ much snipped. ]
>Does scheme have a gui library?
>I really dont follow the logic.
I really REALLY hope that not a single GUI is
constructed in 6.01-2; adding that to the load
would be stark raving mad (look and you'll agree).
As Brian points out, languages are a means to the
end of teaching stuff, and I wouldn't be surprised
if not a single GUI is constructed in the entire
required/restricted elective curriculum. That's
just not to the point of an EECS education that
has to be squeezed into 4/5 years (most students
take the combined MEng path, where the MS degree
is terminal and leads straight to industry).
If any library was a consideration in choosing
Python, it was the robots one for 6.01. Note also
that Hal helped design and teach 6.01, and fully
supports the new curriculum.
As a total LISP/Scheme fanatic who finds parts of
Python's syntax to be too hard for his brain (not
the indentation, that's weird but useful and cool,
much like S-expressions in LISP), I looked hard at
the beginning of 6.01 where they're only teaching
SICP.
For that purpose, Python is not "awful" (remember,
I believe LISP is the One True Way of Computing).
For that initial bit of SICP material, I do not
believe the students will be handicapped.
Beyond that initial bit of material, I have no
informed opinions.
- Harold
Harold Ancell
I have not used EMACS + SLIME, but from what I've
gathered I would wonder if it also might be too
complicated for an introductory course, like it
has been suggested Eclipse is.
At this level, every bit of complexity from syntax
to a fancy IDE is friction, that much more to be
overcome before the real learning begins.
For the purposes of teaching SICP, I found Edwin
on top of MIT-Scheme to be entirely adequate, but
I'd been programming for 6 years before I took 6.001.
(Of course a GUI debugger would be something to
think about, but I'm not sure if pedagogically
it would be better or worse, at least for the
ambitious. Depends on how it was done; again, a
debugger for experts would not likely be good for
introductory courses).
- Harold
Joel J. Adamson
> On Oct 8, 1:23 pm, b...@cs.berkeley.edu (Brian Harvey) wrote:
>> "Kjetil S. Matheussen" <k.s.matheus...@notam02.no> writes:
[...]
>
> Does scheme have a gui library?
Scheme is not a language, it's a standard for implementation. How
much implementors choose to implement is entirely up to them.
PLT Scheme, a particular implementation of Scheme, does have graphics
and GUI libraries.
Joel
--
Joel J. Adamson
Biostatistician
Pediatric Psychopharmacology Research Unit
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 643-1432
(303) 880-3109
Eli Barzilay
> (Of course a GUI debugger would be something to
> think about, but I'm not sure if pedagogically
> it would be better or worse, at least for the
> ambitious. Depends on how it was done; again, a
> debugger for experts would not likely be good for
> introductory courses).
See the Stepper in DrScheme -- it's not a debugger, but it does show
the evaluation process in a way that fits students. (That was its
purpose from the beginning.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Grant Edwards
> Comparing apples with apples, how do you compare the scheme
> gui library with wxpython ? Isnt it better than Tkinter ?
I haven't used the newer Scheme GUI bindings. I switched from
STk to tkinter, and then from tkinter to PyGTK and wxPython. I
found Scheme much easier to use than TCL (an horrible, horrible
language, IMO), but Python is easier yet than Scheme except for
the Tk integration features.
The GTK and wxWidgets Python bindings are native bindings
rather than the TCL-hack used for tkinter, so I would expect a
native GTK or wxWidgets Scheme binding to be quite similar to a
native Python binding for the same library. However, a lot of
extra work has gone into polishing the wxPython features above
and beyond simply the library bindings, so I wouldn't be
surprised if wxPython is better than a vanilla Scheme wxWidgets
biding.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Did an Italian CRANE
at OPERATOR just experience
visi.com uninhibited sensations in
a MALIBU HOT TUB?
Bruce Lewis
> See the Stepper in DrScheme -- it's not a debugger, but it does show
> the evaluation process in a way that fits students. (That was its
> purpose from the beginning.)
I second this, especially the first word. See it. Download drscheme,
put some code in, and try the stepper out. Giving people a clear
visualization of evaluation has got to be a huge help educationally.
--
http://ourdoings.com/
Amazingly simple photo sharing
Ashish Hanwadikar
news:13glveg...@corp.supernews.com...
regarding its gtk+ binding. Could you please point me to appropriate link?
thanks in advance,
Ashish K Hanwadikar
http://ashish.typepad.com/
Grant Edwards
>> However, Tk has been largely abandoned in favor of a native
>> GTK+ binding
>>
>> http://www.stklos.org/
>
> I couldn't find any documentation on stklos (other than a few
> examples) regarding its gtk+ binding. Could you please point
> me to appropriate link?
I don't know of any other documentation for stklos/gtk. You
could ask on the stklos mailing list.
FWIW, here are some other Scheme implimentations with GTK
bindings:
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile-gtk/
http://www-sop.inria.fr/mimosa/fp/Bigloo/
http://practical-scheme.net/gauche/
There may be more, bot those are what Google found me in a
couple minutes time.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I've got an IDEA!!
at Why don't I STARE at you
visi.com so HARD, you forget your
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!!