Week 4

    This week, we delved deeper into recursion. We looked at it  mostly in terms of lists, creating a recursive function "nested_depth" that calculated the nested depth of a list. For example, the nested depth of [1] is 1, and the nested depth of [1, [2, [3, 4], 5], 6] is 3. The return statement for this example is as follows:
return (1 + max([nested_depth(x) for x in L] + [0]) if isinstance(L, list) else 0)
This, at first, was a little tough to comprehend. It definitely took a bit of mental wrestling with the fact that a function could make a call on itself before it was even fully defined. However, I think I made a bit of a personal breakthrough this week. I did some extra research on the internet and found that the more I looked at different examples of recursive functions the more sense the concept made to me.
So, this was a good week in CSC148. I feel comfortable with the material so far. Eager to learn more.

Week 3: Object Oriented Programming

    Classes were among the final concepts we covered in CSC108. At first, in fact, I almost viewed classes as a minor little detail of Python with which I'd rarely have to concern myself in real life. It was only this semester that I realized how fundamental they really are to both object oriented programming and computer science as a whole.
    To me, classes containing methods make much more intuitive sense than isolated functions that can be applied separately to various objects. Both ways work, of course. I'm not sure which is generally more time efficient; I imagine that for different circumstances they both have their respective sets of pros and cons. It's only due to its more direct capacity to represent reality that leads me to prefer OOP.
    Right now, I'm sitting at a table in a library. I've got my laptop in front of me and my backpack on the chair beside me. When I think about my surroundings, I group them subconsciously into classes of object. My laptop is an instance of a class with methods type, click, screenshot, etc. These instances of chairs have methods including support, push back, squeak. Each item in this room belongs to a type. Each type has its own abilities and functions.
    I certainly do not think of my surroundings in terms of procedural programming. I don't see the actions "carry books" and "surf the internet" floating, isolated, around the library. They are instead grouped into the respective items that have the ability to carry them out.
    For this reason, OOP seems like the more intuitive and efficient way to model the real world. And is that not the main intention of most programs? If nothing else, it certainly renders a program more readable and understandable for the programmers themselves.