> Kirby wrote... > > "Of the two of us, whom do you suppose is older and > got into programming > first?" > > I think we are about the same age, but I probably got > "into" it before you. My earliest exposure was Plato, > and that wasn't trivial, and I was programming Z80 > assembly on video game (stand up) consoles right out > of high school. And then I went gang busters. I think > the depth of my assembly language programming in the > day, from embedded micro processors all the way > through mainframes, made me language agnostic. A > computer language linguist. >
No dates. For me it was IBM mainframe 360/370 with assembly language emulator, lotsa languages (PL/1, APL, FORTRAN, SNOBOL...) starting mid 1970s, with HP65 coding before that, in high school in Manila.
> 1. Math is a staple (up to basic algebra, and further > for some careers), coding is not.
Learning to Code has become a recognized childhood activity. Coding in the sense I mean is by now a part of all STEM disciplines. Coding does not necessarily mean writing apps. Even TIs are programmable.
What is coding? The step by step recording of and execution of algorithms.
What is math? The step by step recording and execution of algorithms.
Is that all math is? No. It's not all coding is either.
We also have to invent and prove those algorithms, show they're capable and reliable.
In that great Venn Diagram in the sky, coding and math overlap more and more.
It's an accident of culture that we run a wall between them. In some science fiction future culture, a smarter one, that wall will be gone. Dreams do come true.
> 2. You need to focus on math first, at least up > through algebra, to prepare for coding. >
What about after algebra then? That's a lotta years of high school.
I'm prepared for coding, I know algebra. So maybe the Math I, Math II, Math III start with Algebra 2? But they're coding classes too? Like Litvins?
> And I have provided many references to curriculums > and their requisites, including Litvins', that state > the same exact philosophy. And I have been > consistent. >
Whereas the curriculum I work on and anticipate, as prototypical of others, has a different philosophy. I've been consistent too. I don't like walls that serve admins but make the students over-specialize.
Not so sure about Litvins, which says in the preface it might be a CS programming class or a math class, up to the teacher and/or student where it fits in their learning.
I don't see where it gives advice about K-12 from start to finish. If you've talked with Gary about that it's still off the record. I've only talked with Maria.
My point is at that level, does it matter what we call it? STEM is STEM.
Lets do courses that mix science, coding and math much much more. No one is stopping us. Then add anthropology. Full STEAM ahead.
> Just stand by your idea that we should teach coding > in math class, starting in elementary school, and > stop trying to twist mine, or Litvins', or Stuy's, or > even Garcia's. Which is essentially that math > (through algebra) comes first, and then coding. >
I gain inspiration from other works, but yes, I stick to my curriculum, which I consider better. No Bucky stuff in those. No A & B modules, let alone T, E or S modules. Not really prototypical of the future then.