On 6/08/19 12:04 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:54 PM DL Neil <PythonList at danceswithmice.info> wrote:
>> On 3/08/19 5:50 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:36 PM DL Neil <PythonList at danceswithmice.info> wrote:
>>>> On 3/08/19 4:02 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Sometimes there can be magical firewall penetration tricks that allow
> the traffic to go peer-to-peer after an initial handshake with some
> central server, but this has its own problems. On any network that I
> control, such tricks are disabled; if you want to listen to
> connections from the outside world, you get my explicit permission and
> an actual line in the firewall configs.
Here is the point where I'll bow-out. This sort of stuff is what
NetAdmins are for! Better minds than mine...
>> Also, there are scenarios when both (of the pair) might be contributing
>> by 'coding' concurrently, eg one writing tests and the other code, or
>> one writing one class and the other a second. (but you can debate if
>> that is "pair-programming")
> No, that's not pair programming. That's collaboration on a project,
> but it's not the sort of thing where you need to see the other
> person's screen.
Agreed. "Pair-programming" seemed the closest, commonly-used,
professional term to describe how one might be remotely-useful (pun!?)
during the PUG's Coding Evening.
It seems reasonable that if folk are working-together yet on separate
components, when they link the two components, both being able to see
'the same thing' would be a natural approach, eg one writing the tests
and another the code - what happens when the tests run?
Anyway, this PUG mtg is going to be an 'experience'.
(I'll try (almost) anything once!)
>> Is it acceptable to train folk to code (in a particular language)
>> without also covering the likely tools they will (also) use?
>> So with Python, during the first lesson we could jump straight into a
>> one-line print( "hello world" ) program using the REPL. However, an
>> editor will be employed as soon as we want our code to persist. So
>> should we (immediately) promote the use of a professional editor/IDE, eg
>> PyCharm, Sublime Text, Codium, Eclipse; or a 'traditional' character
>> editing tool, eg Vi, emacs?
>> (please no 'religious wars' just because I mentioned both in the same
> At my work, we instruct students on how to set up one particular tech
> stack, including an editor, linter, source control, etc, etc. We're
> clear with them that these are not the only options, but for the sake
> of bootcamp time pressures, we aren't going to show them any others.
> Depending on what you're trying to do, it MAY be acceptable to teach
> just the language. But that won't make someone employable on its own.
> Like everything, "it depends" :)
As a matter of interest (and if you don't mind sharing), which packages
are included in the organisation's student "stack"?
(again: no 'judgement', please)
How 'expensive' or distracting is it, merely in terms of trainees
failing to follow the installation/configuration instructions?
Do you find 'my first program' (when trainees are first required to use
the 'stack') to be a major failure/frustration/drop-out point? To what
degree might that be caused by the trainee realising that (s)he has to
turn 'book knowledge' into coding-action, ie 'the real world', and how
much might be the 'cost' of those tools?