Tony Duell skrev:
>> I think the interpreter makes BASIC unequalled pedagogically.
>I am not convinced. While the 'instant gratification' (you type a
>statement without a line number and the result comes right back) might be
>useful when you're starting out, it also encourages the 'modify at random
>until it works' style of programming, rather than thinking about the
>problem, thinking about how to solve it, and only then actually writing
>the program.
They'll have plenty of time to think about problem later. The prime objective
is at first to actually get them programming. Making the computer write your
name on the screen is an eye-opener.
You can worry about good programming practice and all that after you've
introduced them to the very first concept of programming, namely that of
entering commands for the computer to execute. Everything is secondary to
that.
>Needless to say, I consider 'modify at random until it works' to be a
>very Bad Thing!
By all means. And sooner or later it won't work.
>I've seen hardware 'designers' do something similar with FPGAs (and other
>technologies that are easy to modify). Things like 'maybe it'll work if I
>change this AND gate to an OR gate' or 'I'll try inverting that clock
>signal'. Or 'Maybe I need one more state in that counter'. No real idea
>as to what they should be doing, and why.
As long as you analyse it afterwards and find out what made it work/not work,
it's all right by me.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Received on Fri Aug 17 2001 - 22:15:07 BST