Re: why did MIT drop scheme for python in intro to computing?

Discussion in 'Python' started by gnuist006@hotmail.com, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. Guest

    On Oct 8, 1:23 pm, (Brian Harvey) wrote:
    > "Kjetil S. Matheussen" <> 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.


    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.
     
    , Oct 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 2007-10-09, <> wrote:

    > Does scheme have a gui library?


    Yes. It had a far, far better Tk binding than Python.

    http://kaolin.unice.fr/STk/

    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

    http://www.stklos.org/

    --
    Grant Edwards grante Yow! You should all JUMP
    at UP AND DOWN for TWO HOURS
    visi.com while I decide on a NEW
    CAREER!!
     
    Grant Edwards, Oct 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Oct 8, 9:04 pm, Grant Edwards <> wrote:
    > On 2007-10-09, <> wrote:
    >
    > > Does scheme have a gui library?

    >
    > Yes. It had a far, far better Tk binding than Python.
    >
    > http://kaolin.unice.fr/STk/
    >
    > 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
    >
    > http://www.stklos.org/
    >
    > --
    > Grant Edwards grante Yow! You should all JUMP
    > at UP AND DOWN for TWO HOURS
    > visi.com while I decide on a NEW
    > CAREER!!


    Comparing apples with apples, how do you compare the scheme
    gui library with wxpython ? Isnt it better than Tkinter ?
     
    , Oct 9, 2007
    #3
  4. On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:28:53 -0000, wrote:

    >On Oct 8, 1:23 pm, (Brian Harvey) wrote:


    >> "Kjetil S. Matheussen" <> 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, Oct 9, 2007
    #4
  5. On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 06:28:00AM -0500, Harold Ancell wrote regarding Re: why did MIT drop scheme for python in intro to computing?:
    >
    > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:28:53 -0000, wrote:
    >
    > >On Oct 8, 1:23 pm, (Brian Harvey) wrote:

    >
    > >> "Kjetil S. Matheussen" <> 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
    >
    > --
    > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


    I, for one, (coming from the Python side) would be thrilled to see a rigorous SICP-like book published using Python as its basis. But maybe with the new change of focus to application based, that won't be forthcoming. We'll see.

    Cheers,
    Cliff
     
    J. Clifford Dyer, Oct 9, 2007
    #5
  6. writes:

    > On Oct 8, 1:23 pm, (Brian Harvey) wrote:
    >> "Kjetil S. Matheussen" <> 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
     
    Joel J. Adamson, Oct 9, 2007
    #6
  7. On 2007-10-09, <> wrote:

    > 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?
     
    Grant Edwards, Oct 9, 2007
    #7
  8. "Grant Edwards" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2007-10-09, <> wrote:
    >
    >> Does scheme have a gui library?

    >
    > Yes. It had a far, far better Tk binding than Python.
    >
    > http://kaolin.unice.fr/STk/
    >
    > 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
    >
    > http://www.stklos.org/
    >
    > --
    > Grant Edwards grante Yow! You should all
    > JUMP
    > at UP AND DOWN for TWO
    > HOURS
    > visi.com while I decide on a NEW
    > CAREER!!

    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?
    thanks in advance,
    Ashish K Hanwadikar
    http://ashish.typepad.com/
     
    Ashish Hanwadikar, Oct 10, 2007
    #8
  9. On 2007-10-10, Ashish Hanwadikar <> wrote:

    >> 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!!
     
    Grant Edwards, Oct 10, 2007
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,008
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  2. fft1976
    Replies:
    80
    Views:
    1,681
    magicus
    Jul 28, 2009
  3. Jean-Paul Calderone

    Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

    Jean-Paul Calderone, Jul 22, 2009, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    332
    Дамјан ГеоргиевÑки
    Jul 28, 2009
  4. Hendrik van Rooyen

    Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

    Hendrik van Rooyen, Jul 29, 2009, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    281
  5. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Some errors in MIT's intro C++ course

    Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, Sep 8, 2010, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    3,367
    Juha Nieminen
    Sep 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page