Develop activity [was Re: [sugar] Education?]
Sat Mar 10 15:57:37 EST 2007
On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:10 , Andrew Clunis wrote:
> One thing that does bother me about hacking within a running
> instance of
> a program is that people might get sloppy about the state of their
> program; they'll be coding against state produced by their earlier
> including buggy stuff they deleted or changed. Perhaps I misunderstand
> somehow and someone can refute this?
I guess this is new territory, not sure to which extent this has been
tried in Python yet. There was talk about this some time ago on the
edu-sig list, which was resumed because of Guido's xreload:
> I think, for gen1 at least, that Develop should focus on older
> and hackers writing Activities, and eToys should focus on providing a
> learning environment for the youngest children.
> That isn't necessarily ideal, but it is certainly the most realistic
> target. That doesn't mean that Develop won't learn as many lessons
> etoys as it can, and perhaps ultimately do what eToys does now for the
> young kids.
I'm looking forward to see how this pans out :)
>>>>> ow 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
>>>>> inside a world' for this transparent learning machine we are
> This is an important distinction to make. Develop has to deal with
> real world (at least within the context of the XO), whereas eToys has
> the benefit of being self-contained.
OTOH, the whole idea of developing a new environment (Sugar) is
precisely to make a world where kids can explore freely. There
shouldn't be any artificial limit of what you can do in there.
- Bert -
More information about the Sugar-devel