A Higher standard- Open Source Code versus Educational Open Source
LoopyByteloose
Posts: 12,537
Everybody seems to demand Open Source Code these days. That's why Parallax created the original OBEX as a means to exchange such.
But the simple fact is a lot of users have no idea what to do with the open source code once they download it. It is either too advanced or too specific in its application. I sense there is something missing from the mix.
So I am thinking the market is really driven NOT by Open Source Code, but by Educational Open Source Code - a narrower definition of open source that is really useful as the front door for people wanting to learn.
The axiom "When the Open Source Code is clear to new users, the use your microcontroller."
This subject came up earlier today in a private message between myself and Dave Hein as I expressed that really like pfth because it pretty much fits the 'educational source code' for my level of ability and my learning goals.
And in fact, I have seen other code that evolved away from the educational useful and into being too sophisticated for the new user as the author does more improvements.
This happened with a lot of the SX chip's code samples that got carried away with conditional programing. Sudden there were pages and pages of secondary code that were a preamble to the core of functional code.
We have a new book by Gordon McComb that might be a good product to designate as Parallax' Educational Open Source standard rather than merely generic open source. New users need to be able to identify where to begin. From there, new code could either be recognized as generic open source or seek the higher standard of Education Open Source.
In the case of pfth, I personally think that Version 0.72 is closer to an Educational Open Source as it works well and yet doesn't begin to have sophisticated optimizations.
Don't get me wrong, I think version 1.02 is excellent with all its improvements. It is just that the student will find it a bit more work to comprehend all the additions and enhancements.
You can't start out running. You have to first crawl, then walk, and finally run. It is the same with computer code. The beginner doesn't need long examples that include every bell and whistle. In fact, they often may give up if handed 30 or so pages of code to start with and go elsewhere.
So what to do??
Well consider starting with an Parallax Educational Open Source as a separate designation. If it works out, maybe have the community rate the level of learning difficulty as well via polling.
It is very natural for code to mature and as it does, it gets longer and more complex. Linux is open-source, but is vast and has evolved greatly. Along with that evolution it becomes more to teach and more complex to teach. So it is quite natural for teachers to go back to some simpler and clearer historic examples and not try to start with the best that is available today.
I think the principal is clear. And we certainly want the really bright and advanced users to continue to collaborate and share code. But it feels like the new user has been reluctant to join in. It may all seem too advanced for them.
But the simple fact is a lot of users have no idea what to do with the open source code once they download it. It is either too advanced or too specific in its application. I sense there is something missing from the mix.
So I am thinking the market is really driven NOT by Open Source Code, but by Educational Open Source Code - a narrower definition of open source that is really useful as the front door for people wanting to learn.
The axiom "When the Open Source Code is clear to new users, the use your microcontroller."
This subject came up earlier today in a private message between myself and Dave Hein as I expressed that really like pfth because it pretty much fits the 'educational source code' for my level of ability and my learning goals.
And in fact, I have seen other code that evolved away from the educational useful and into being too sophisticated for the new user as the author does more improvements.
This happened with a lot of the SX chip's code samples that got carried away with conditional programing. Sudden there were pages and pages of secondary code that were a preamble to the core of functional code.
We have a new book by Gordon McComb that might be a good product to designate as Parallax' Educational Open Source standard rather than merely generic open source. New users need to be able to identify where to begin. From there, new code could either be recognized as generic open source or seek the higher standard of Education Open Source.
In the case of pfth, I personally think that Version 0.72 is closer to an Educational Open Source as it works well and yet doesn't begin to have sophisticated optimizations.
Don't get me wrong, I think version 1.02 is excellent with all its improvements. It is just that the student will find it a bit more work to comprehend all the additions and enhancements.
You can't start out running. You have to first crawl, then walk, and finally run. It is the same with computer code. The beginner doesn't need long examples that include every bell and whistle. In fact, they often may give up if handed 30 or so pages of code to start with and go elsewhere.
So what to do??
Well consider starting with an Parallax Educational Open Source as a separate designation. If it works out, maybe have the community rate the level of learning difficulty as well via polling.
It is very natural for code to mature and as it does, it gets longer and more complex. Linux is open-source, but is vast and has evolved greatly. Along with that evolution it becomes more to teach and more complex to teach. So it is quite natural for teachers to go back to some simpler and clearer historic examples and not try to start with the best that is available today.
I think the principal is clear. And we certainly want the really bright and advanced users to continue to collaborate and share code. But it feels like the new user has been reluctant to join in. It may all seem too advanced for them.