Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

On programming (was FW: update.248)



Samuel Held reported that:

... Sylvan Bloch (813-961-0778), of the University of
South Florida does the converse of this. He and Robert
Dressler developed software (for the classroom) for using
random numbers to generate a statistical estimation of pi.

How can this help students to learn mathematics or physics?
You give them "software", they click on an icon (I am imagining
here) and the correct number pops up. Why is this better than
just printing PI in a textbook (with appropriate pictures,
explanations and challenging exercises?

About 20 years ago programming was promoted as the way
of solving problems numerically. Students certainly learn
when they invent algorithms in a language which parallels
mathematical formalism. It forces them to break big problems
into small pieces, be consistent with mathematical expressions
of laws of physics, etc. etc. But today procedural languages,
such as fortran or pascal, are no longer promoted by physics
teachers. Is this a correct assessment? Is it good or bad?

I am not familiar with an "object-oriented" language. Are C++
or Java suitable for "learning physics via creative programming"?
Are such languages better or worse than those which were so
popular two decades ago? Who controls such things as
supporting or not supporting a language? If it was up to me
I would promote True Basic as a common language all kids
know how to program with, from elementary schools up to
the university level. Just like fortran is a common language
among scientists (and probably among many engineers).

Ludwik Kowalski