[plt-scheme] Re: plt-scheme type of language

From: Raoul Duke (raould at gmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 11 18:41:06 EST 2009

> Certainly, Raoul.  I agree 100% that showing failures can be a great
> tool.  There is a question of the level of abstraction, though.  I

i just realized that i feel like the context has changed as the
discussion has gone on, but i might be confabulating things. i thought
there was the "nobody knows how to define a type system right!" thread
and the "what books should i use for an intro course?" thread and it
seems like the former has been injected with the context of the

but even in an introductory course, i'm not sure that dynamic scoping
of variable values is "the opposite of" or "a whole new topic" vs.
lexical scope. i mean, i don't think of it that way, at least.

i'm (or at least i hope i'm) not trying to tell people what to do in
their teaching. i'm more speaking from my own introspection about how
i seem to learn best / easiest, and suggesting that (in an ideal
world, granted!) it could be worth re-thinking how things are taught;
along the lines of Dr. Krishnamurthi's question in the PLAI thread
where he was, I thought, asking for input on how to get the message
across more successfully.


Posted on the users mailing list.