Donghee

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
http://210.117.172.121/chonbuk

----
{{|
So, here's what I think today. If you are going to teach objects at 
all, then you should teach them right from the beginning, or pretty 
much forget about it. And the objects should not remotely be abstract 
data types. Every effort should be made to model things that are more 
interesting than data (that's pretty much everything in the universe! 
-- so there is quite a large selection to choose from).
If your OOP system shows too much mechanism for beginners, then 
use it to reshape itself to show beginners what they need to see: a 
nice combination of simplicity and power. If your object system 
doesn't readily allow this reshaping, then you should abandon it and 
find one that does (why teach something that is ultimately not 
sound?). BTW, this is a good way for students, especially grad 
students, to learn deep ideas about language and systems. They should 
be readily be helping to make forms of the language for the beginning 
classes.

|}} 역시 스케일이커 

{{|
I am astounded that folks who teach Squeak in 
college haven't done a lot more to make an introductory environment 
that gets beginners quickly into the many media objects in Squeak. 
This would be analogous to what we did with the etoys for children, 
but with more range.
|}} apparatus, 스캣폴딩

--http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/squeak/1267681
  * 전산전공, 비전산전공 둘다 관심 가지는 요소를 다루는것이 중요하다.
  * 다루는 데이터를 꼭 정해놓을 필요가 없다. 자주 쓰고 관심가는것 부터 접근하는게 유익하지..
  * 해결해야할 문제는 다양하지 않은가? (몇가지로 정해져있지 않는다.) 

''현재 학문이 가지는 큰 문제가 현실에 도움이 되는 접근이 부족하다인데, 위와 통하는군!''
 학문을 오랫동안(?) '잘' 공부하면 대부분의 현실에 도움이 된다. 그런데 '잘' 공부하기 까지가 힘들다;;;
 철학, 수학, 대부분의 학문이 현실 문제 해결을 하는 것이다. 문제해결이라는 같은 맥락에서 봐야지!