5 ms·

Languages such as C, Java, Python, and Rust are usually designed by experienced programmers in industry, for experienced programmers in industry. Pyret, on the

by jswrenn 10y ago

Languages such as C, Java, Python, and Rust are usually designed by experienced programmers in industry, for experienced programmers in industry. Pyret, on the other hand, is designed by computer science educators, for computer science education. This does not preclude Pyret from being a useful language for general-purpose programming; it just means that language design decisions are driven foremost by pedagogy. For example, Pyret trades performance for mathematical familiarity by using exact representations of rational numbers as its primary number type. Language like C, Java, Python, and Rust are all distinguished by different priorities that have guided their language design, too. I disagree with your characterization of any language as being the "real thing" because it privileges some languages above others, but let's run with it for a moment: A systems programmer might call Rust or C the "real thing", in contrast to Python, and perhaps they would even consider delta "quality performance". A sysadmin might call Python the "real thing" in contrast to C, and consider delta "quality productivity". Assuming learning one programming language does not preclude you from learning another, why shouldn't a computer science education call "Pyret" the "real thing" and be asked to justify the "delta learning" of moving to language that isn't designed with pedagogic interests in mind? (Disclosure: I am an occasional developer to Pyret, and this comment might not represent the views of the rest of the team. If skrishnamurthi or jpolitz replies, read their comment instead!)

dom0 10y ago
> Languages such as C, Java, Python, and Rust are usually designed by experienced programmers in industry, for experienced programmers in industry. Pyret, on the other hand, is designed by computer science educators, for computer science education. Honestly, looking at the examples on the Pyret main page makes me think that this isn't a good approach at all. I have been in software engineering for many years now and worked with quite some languages, yet I find the code practically in-understandable and the language looks very complex. So likely someone who "learned" using this language will have a lot of trouble actually working with real languages, assuming that he actually managed to learn this language as his first, which is rather unlikely I believe. I was also involved in CS education - in first semester programming courses. And the language is really the last problem there (C was used, I think the dept. is moving to Python for that course though). Especially eg. Python is a good language overall and is already widely used in CS education. In short, I don't see why the world needs this, and I actually think that using it would be actively harmful.
- jswrenn 10y ago
  What characteristics makes a programming language a "real" programming language?
  - petre 10y ago
    - has a standard library - has library support for the usual stuff: strings, math, web, database, encoding, etc. - written using a lower level language (like C, Rust, C++), self hosted (Go) or a mix of those (Dlang, Perl6) - is actually used to build applications, has some sort of community around it (Rust, Perl, Python, Lua etc.) or some backing (Swift, Java, Go)
  - threatofrain 10y ago
    The most important distinction would be that you don't have to make a transition from education contexts to production contexts. I mean, why isn't it possible to design a language that is both quite fit for education & production? Is Python vs. Pyret really that big a difference in education outcomes? This is important for professors & TA's, educators, or enthusiast parents who wish to teach their children. All have to master a toolset and environment prior to teaching others, and maintaining the environment is also an ongoing cost. Some of this cost will be assuredly transferred to students, so we want to be sure that a "pedagogical" language without production traction has such powerful gains that it offsets the losses.
    - skrishnamurthi 10y ago
      Yes, it is a big difference, depending on what you're trying to teach. If you want to teach a conventional CS curriculum recognizable from the 80s, Python is great (though some people really prefer teaching with static types, which Python does not have and which are absurdly hard to add now). Here are several other differences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189513
  - munificent 10y ago
    It's a real language if there are programs written in it where the where the main goal is what the program does when you run it, and not what the author learned writing it.
threatofrain 10y ago
I don't think you've responded to the most important point made by the parent, which is that any pedagogical value provided by a pedagogically-designed language over an engineering-designed language must be very substantial to offset the specified costs. You have drawn privileged lines of your own across programming languages by suggesting that languages designed for education are better in the education context, and that languages designed for engineering are less fit for education. Do you think there is a pedagogical outcome difference arising from programming language difference? So how much is that difference? How does one demonstrate the additional pedagogical value? Conversely, how does one demonstrate the relative disadvantages of using Python in education? Is the difference from Python -> Pyret an interesting barrier to students of computer science? Meanwhile, the argument about the cost of maintaining tools and environment stands unchallenged, and the argument about the inertia of moving to a completely different ecosystem remains unchallenged. PS: What pedagogical literature guides the pedagogically-focused design of this language? I couldn't find any on the website.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Wouldn't the value of education oriented languages be that educators can avoid specific complexities that get in way the of teaching core concepts? Once a student has core concepts, then they have something they can build on with other languages that have more issues (potentially complex) stemming from practical problems. This prevents needing to learn two complex things at the same time. Does pyret have easier to understand errors around syntax and typographical errors than Python? Most real languages won't search for similar identifiers to one that is misspelled and make suggestions, does pyret do anything like this (Other teaching tools do)?
  - threatofrain 10y ago
    I rephrase your post in my head: The value of an education-oriented programming language is a boost to X education outcome relative to competing alternatives, and that "avoiding specific complexities" would be the mechanism by which to achieve your outcome. Therefore, (Pyret intervention) -> (educators don't struggle with language complexities) -> (education outcome) But first I want to know that there's even a difference between (Pyret intervention) and (Python intervention) on (education outcome).
spynxic 10y ago
"For example, Pyret trades performance for mathematical familiarity by using exact representations of rational numbers as its primary number type." (Disclaimer: I haven't used Pyret) But.. maybe the language allows the developer work out problems differently. With that in mind, perhaps asserting that the language was built for education, [so as to imply that it'll make you a better programmers in general, even in 'bloated or expert' languages], doesn't necessarily shed light on its actual benefits -- but I'll check it out later on to find out for certain.

by jswrenn 10y ago

dom0 10y ago

> Languages such as C, Java, Python, and Rust are usually designed by experienced programmers in industry, for experienced programmers in industry. Pyret, on the other hand, is designed by computer science educators, for computer science education. Honestly, looking at the examples on the Pyret main page makes me think that this isn't a good approach at all. I have been in software engineering for many years now and worked with quite some languages, yet I find the code practically in-understandable and the language looks very complex. So likely someone who "learned" using this language will have a lot of trouble actually working with real languages, assuming that he actually managed to learn this language as his first, which is rather unlikely I believe. I was also involved in CS education - in first semester programming courses. And the language is really the last problem there (C was used, I think the dept. is moving to Python for that course though). Especially eg. Python is a good language overall and is already widely used in CS education. In short, I don't see why the world needs this, and I actually think that using it would be actively harmful.

jswrenn 10y ago
What characteristics makes a programming language a "real" programming language?
- petre 10y ago
  - has a standard library - has library support for the usual stuff: strings, math, web, database, encoding, etc. - written using a lower level language (like C, Rust, C++), self hosted (Go) or a mix of those (Dlang, Perl6) - is actually used to build applications, has some sort of community around it (Rust, Perl, Python, Lua etc.) or some backing (Swift, Java, Go)
- threatofrain 10y ago
  The most important distinction would be that you don't have to make a transition from education contexts to production contexts. I mean, why isn't it possible to design a language that is both quite fit for education & production? Is Python vs. Pyret really that big a difference in education outcomes? This is important for professors & TA's, educators, or enthusiast parents who wish to teach their children. All have to master a toolset and environment prior to teaching others, and maintaining the environment is also an ongoing cost. Some of this cost will be assuredly transferred to students, so we want to be sure that a "pedagogical" language without production traction has such powerful gains that it offsets the losses.
  - skrishnamurthi 10y ago
    Yes, it is a big difference, depending on what you're trying to teach. If you want to teach a conventional CS curriculum recognizable from the 80s, Python is great (though some people really prefer teaching with static types, which Python does not have and which are absurdly hard to add now). Here are several other differences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189513
- munificent 10y ago
  It's a real language if there are programs written in it where the where the main goal is what the program does when you run it, and not what the author learned writing it.

threatofrain 10y ago

I don't think you've responded to the most important point made by the parent, which is that any pedagogical value provided by a pedagogically-designed language over an engineering-designed language must be very substantial to offset the specified costs. You have drawn privileged lines of your own across programming languages by suggesting that languages designed for education are better in the education context, and that languages designed for engineering are less fit for education. Do you think there is a pedagogical outcome difference arising from programming language difference? So how much is that difference? How does one demonstrate the additional pedagogical value? Conversely, how does one demonstrate the relative disadvantages of using Python in education? Is the difference from Python -> Pyret an interesting barrier to students of computer science? Meanwhile, the argument about the cost of maintaining tools and environment stands unchallenged, and the argument about the inertia of moving to a completely different ecosystem remains unchallenged. PS: What pedagogical literature guides the pedagogically-focused design of this language? I couldn't find any on the website.

sqeaky 10y ago
Wouldn't the value of education oriented languages be that educators can avoid specific complexities that get in way the of teaching core concepts? Once a student has core concepts, then they have something they can build on with other languages that have more issues (potentially complex) stemming from practical problems. This prevents needing to learn two complex things at the same time. Does pyret have easier to understand errors around syntax and typographical errors than Python? Most real languages won't search for similar identifiers to one that is misspelled and make suggestions, does pyret do anything like this (Other teaching tools do)?
- threatofrain 10y ago
  I rephrase your post in my head: The value of an education-oriented programming language is a boost to X education outcome relative to competing alternatives, and that "avoiding specific complexities" would be the mechanism by which to achieve your outcome. Therefore, (Pyret intervention) -> (educators don't struggle with language complexities) -> (education outcome) But first I want to know that there's even a difference between (Pyret intervention) and (Python intervention) on (education outcome).

spynxic 10y ago

"For example, Pyret trades performance for mathematical familiarity by using exact representations of rational numbers as its primary number type." (Disclaimer: I haven't used Pyret) But.. maybe the language allows the developer work out problems differently. With that in mind, perhaps asserting that the language was built for education, [so as to imply that it'll make you a better programmers in general, even in 'bloated or expert' languages], doesn't necessarily shed light on its actual benefits -- but I'll check it out later on to find out for certain.