[sugar] Education?

[Bert Freudenberg]

Hi Guido,

I still think your choice of words was inappropriate. If anything is  
an anathema, then it's the huge body of impenetrable C code in linux,  
the libraries, X11, gecko, gtk, cairo, and, yes, underlying Python,  
too, and even Squeak, though to a much lesser extent. This prevents  
opening the hood, seeing how things work, modifying it, constructing  
new things etc. *This* is against the OLPC philosophy, which  
explicitly encourages constructionist learning.

Sadly, there isn't anything comparable to Etoys in the whole open  
source world. Actually, strike that last five words. It's not like  
most of it couldn't be done in Python, but for whatever reason,  
nobody does it. I'd be happy to hear otherwise, but so far, the  
Python community (or anybody else for that matter) to me does not  
exactly appear enthusiastic about creating something that could  
replace Etoys.

- Bert -

On Mar 9, 2007, at 17:26 , Guido van Rossum wrote:

> Thanks Alan. I'm quite satisfied with this response and I agree with
> the priorities!
>
> On 3/9/07, Alan Kay <alan.kay at squeakland.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Guido knows that I've been advocating that the Python folks  
>> should do Etoys
>> or a very Etoys like environment in Python (and that the rest of  
>> the OLPC be
>> given an objectification and media and scripting integration that  
>> is Etoys
>> like).
>>
>>  However, there are simply zillions of things left to be done  
>> everywhere for
>> OLPC so the first round of SW on the XO will be more of a  
>> gathering of
>> "suggestive" features and abilities (of which Etoys is just one).  
>> That seems
>> fine to me.
>>
>>  Viewpoints Research (our little non-profit) doesn't have any "ego or
>> identity" staked around whether the children's authoring  
>> environment is
>> Python based or Squeak based. I have said many times that, if the  
>> general
>> integrative base of XO is to be Python, then the Etoys-like  
>> authoring should
>> be based in Python also.
>>
>>  However, I will personally fight to the death to make sure that  
>> there is a
>> children's authoring environment that allows even young children  
>> to do
>> simulation style programming with very rich media objects.
>>
>>  For now, that is Etoys. It could be a suitable object-oriented  
>> Logo with
>> media objects (this is essentially what Etoys is). It could be  
>> some better
>> design (let's do one). The base could be Javascript (if  
>> implemented on top
>> of an integrated environment of sufficient power), Python (ditto),  
>> Ruby
>> (ditto), etc. Whatever it is, it has to be above high thresholds,  
>> not a hack
>> or a gesture.
>>
>>  Besides the programming the children use to learn important ideas  
>> in math
>> and science, they also need to be able to see how their own  
>> computer world
>> is structured by being able to "pop the hood" on practically  
>> everything they
>> use. Perhaps it is OK for high school children to see the current  
>> code (but
>> I don't think so). I think there needs to be a wrapping on the  
>> entire set of
>> facilities that uses the same conventions that 9 year olds do  
>> their own
>> programming in. Again, if it is to be Python, then it needs to be  
>> crafted a
>> bit for younger children. E.g. Etoys allows easy unlimited  
>> parallel tasking,
>> and this is very important for children's programming. Etc.
>>
>>  There are many good things that can be done here. We live in a  
>> computing
>> world in which there is a tremendous amount of identification  
>> between many
>> programmers and the tools they use -- so strong that it resembles  
>> religious
>> fervor. From my view, ALL of the system have such flaws that we  
>> are better
>> off being critical of all of them and try to use the best ideas from
>> everywhere.
>>
>>  If "Children First!" is really the goal here, then we must spend  
>> most of
>> our energies trying to make the childrens' environments more  
>> conducive to
>> creative learning of powerful ideas.
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>>  Alan
>>
>>
>>  At 02:52 AM 3/9/2007, MBurns wrote:
>>
>> On 3/8/07, no body <esorcus at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Isn't the mere presence of eToys on the XO a complete anathema to  
>> the
>>  sugar philosophy?
>>
>>  As the XO is about education and etoys is the only software on  
>> the OLPC
>> that
>>  actually has any relation to education the above is a somewhat  
>> confusing
>>  statement. But maybe I misunderstood and the XO is really about  
>> Python...
>>  I think the quote is referencing something else (though I may
>> misunderstand).
>>
>>  The eToys environment is a self-contained world of development. One
>>  that exists within the Sguar world of development. Programs,  
>> projects,
>>  source code and objects written in that eToys world do not exist
>>  outside in the Sugar world. You can write a sugar Activity or an  
>> eToys
>>  bundle, and, as we have seen in the gaming realm, they can often
>>  accomplish the same end goal.
>>
>>  Now this may or may not be an issue to people(OLPC devs, students,
>>  teacers), they may or may not care, but it is an interesting 'world
>>  inside a world' for this transparent learning machine we are
>>  developing.
>>
>>  --
>>  Michael Burns * Security Student
>>  NET * Oregon State University