Say we use a bit to store the result of a coin toss. True for heads, false for tails.
With two bits, we can store the results of two coin tosses. There are four possible outcomes when two coins are tossed, ranging from neither of them being heads, to only the first or the second being heads, or both of them being heads.
If we double the number of bits, we can store the result of four coin tosses. There are now sixteen possible outcomes, but we're still only storing the result of four tosses.
(Note that this example assumes we're interested in storing off the result of each coin toss. If we're only interested in counting the total number of heads or tails and don't care which coin was tossed in what order, then we can use our bits to store the total number of successful tosses rather the result of each toss, which is a much more efficient use of our bits but carries less information.)
I love PHP for prototyping ideas, and the html-integration as well as the hard-to-beat completeness of the supporting libraries makes it great for writing quick scripts where I want a webbish-GUI. Everything exposed in the global namespace? No problem when all I want to do is some quick processing of an image or some other data.
But that very nature lends itself to a paradigm that makes it far too easy to eschew software engineering principals. So you reap what you sow.
Yes, you can do OOP in PHP. But on large projects - and especially multi-programmer projects - you or somebody on your team is probably gonna wind up succumbing to doing things the way the language makes easy.
Now excuse me while I go write some sparkly, gorgeous Python code.
Reading this thread, I don't get the impression that many respondents have much in the way of experience teaching high school kids.
You can say "teach a man to fish", but that only gets you so far in
a single course
for a single semester
that needs to engage students across a broad spectrum of interest and learning styles
is competing with the rest of their classes and lives and is only ever going to consume a small slice of their attention.
Remember, this isn't college or university where the terms of entrance and student motivation are vastly different. At the very least you need to know your audience.
That said, I'm strongly in favour of teaching them the commercial products you already have. These are frankly the kinds of products they are most likely to encounter in future courses and the working world. You already have the infrastructure for them. You already have support staff that knows how to use them. There won't be any ramping-up time or unforeseen issues with their usability.
I can't speak for all of the products listed, but I use Photoshop 7 on a Mac at home, and CS2 on Windows at work. The UI differences are so negligible that I don't even notice going from one to the other. I would consider Photoshop 7 to be perfectly serviceable for teaching graphic design skills to high-schoolers. Hell, Photoshop 5 would still get the job done adequately.
On the other hand, it's been a couple years since I've used GIMP, but I recall its interface was clunky and un-Windows-like. I don't know if that's changed, but I would expect I would be wasting a lot of time teaching people who've only ever used Windows how to navigate that program, rather than the skills that should be common to both programs. You're going to be spending a lot more time troubleshooting stuff, the students will be a lot less able to help each other out, and even if you have the necessary expertise with GIMP to do all of it, who will when you're taking a sick day?
Forgive the generalization, but most of the open-source proponents I've read on this thread seem to be more interested in evangelizing open source than they are assessing what will actually work.
I don't know where all the vitriol stems from.
All they are doing is cautioning parents against confusing their own nostalgic feelings for the show with the notion of what consists of proper educational programming.
There are some valid points in the warning. Like seeing the age difference between the human characters then and now may be jarring for kids who haven't reached an operational stage yet. Educational theory changes over time, and Sesame Street is a show that has *constantly* evolved to better serve children's education and psychology. (For example, Snuffleupagus was revealed as non-imaginary to the other denizens of the street in response to pedophile and sexual predator cases that were taking place, because the writers felt they had been discouraging children from speaking up to adults who would only think they were imagining things.)
They aren't telling you that the sky will fall if you let your kids watch it. They're simply giving the best advice they can with regards to childhood learning (and I do believe they've got some highly trained, well-meaning folk over there), and preventing any misrepresentation on their part with regards to the intent of the DVDs. To me, the warning seems both prudent and responsible of them.
Dan.
While I'm sure they appreciate the value of facelessness, you might be surprised at the chutzpah they already exhibit.
For example, TD Canada Trust (my bank in Canada) has separate lines and kiosks for its business and consumer clients. As I imagine many other banks do. Talk about dropping the pretense!
Don't you think that if they could check the balance of your account by scanning you while you were still in line, they would?
Slashdot Mirror
Another way of looking at it:
Say we use a bit to store the result of a coin toss. True for heads, false for tails.
With two bits, we can store the results of two coin tosses. There are four possible outcomes when two coins are tossed, ranging from neither of them being heads, to only the first or the second being heads, or both of them being heads.
If we double the number of bits, we can store the result of four coin tosses. There are now sixteen possible outcomes, but we're still only storing the result of four tosses.
(Note that this example assumes we're interested in storing off the result of each coin toss. If we're only interested in counting the total number of heads or tails and don't care which coin was tossed in what order, then we can use our bits to store the total number of successful tosses rather the result of each toss, which is a much more efficient use of our bits but carries less information.)
Dan.
But that very nature lends itself to a paradigm that makes it far too easy to eschew software engineering principals. So you reap what you sow.
Yes, you can do OOP in PHP. But on large projects - and especially multi-programmer projects - you or somebody on your team is probably gonna wind up succumbing to doing things the way the language makes easy.
Now excuse me while I go write some sparkly, gorgeous Python code.
Dan.
You can say "teach a man to fish", but that only gets you so far in
Remember, this isn't college or university where the terms of entrance and student motivation are vastly different. At the very least you need to know your audience.
That said, I'm strongly in favour of teaching them the commercial products you already have. These are frankly the kinds of products they are most likely to encounter in future courses and the working world. You already have the infrastructure for them. You already have support staff that knows how to use them. There won't be any ramping-up time or unforeseen issues with their usability.
I can't speak for all of the products listed, but I use Photoshop 7 on a Mac at home, and CS2 on Windows at work. The UI differences are so negligible that I don't even notice going from one to the other. I would consider Photoshop 7 to be perfectly serviceable for teaching graphic design skills to high-schoolers. Hell, Photoshop 5 would still get the job done adequately.
On the other hand, it's been a couple years since I've used GIMP, but I recall its interface was clunky and un-Windows-like. I don't know if that's changed, but I would expect I would be wasting a lot of time teaching people who've only ever used Windows how to navigate that program, rather than the skills that should be common to both programs. You're going to be spending a lot more time troubleshooting stuff, the students will be a lot less able to help each other out, and even if you have the necessary expertise with GIMP to do all of it, who will when you're taking a sick day?
Forgive the generalization, but most of the open-source proponents I've read on this thread seem to be more interested in evangelizing open source than they are assessing what will actually work.
Dan.
I don't know where all the vitriol stems from. All they are doing is cautioning parents against confusing their own nostalgic feelings for the show with the notion of what consists of proper educational programming. There are some valid points in the warning. Like seeing the age difference between the human characters then and now may be jarring for kids who haven't reached an operational stage yet. Educational theory changes over time, and Sesame Street is a show that has *constantly* evolved to better serve children's education and psychology. (For example, Snuffleupagus was revealed as non-imaginary to the other denizens of the street in response to pedophile and sexual predator cases that were taking place, because the writers felt they had been discouraging children from speaking up to adults who would only think they were imagining things.) They aren't telling you that the sky will fall if you let your kids watch it. They're simply giving the best advice they can with regards to childhood learning (and I do believe they've got some highly trained, well-meaning folk over there), and preventing any misrepresentation on their part with regards to the intent of the DVDs. To me, the warning seems both prudent and responsible of them. Dan.
By Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie:
d ex.html~content
http://www.deadtroll.com/index2.html?/sysadmin/in
Dan.
... Java may be the exclusive language used on a wider variety of platforms, and opens up those platforms to you for development.
Conversely, while C# might be an asset to you for some employers, I imagine that you will rarely be in a situation where C++ won't serve just as well.
Dan.
While I'm sure they appreciate the value of facelessness, you might be surprised at the chutzpah they already exhibit. For example, TD Canada Trust (my bank in Canada) has separate lines and kiosks for its business and consumer clients. As I imagine many other banks do. Talk about dropping the pretense! Don't you think that if they could check the balance of your account by scanning you while you were still in line, they would?