I made some changes to Unit 7. Sharing those changes here for comments or reuse.

[jdonwells]

The problem I saw with Unit 7 is the way it starts. We show them how to create empty classes and then populate the instances with attributes individually outside of the class. If you have spent any time in this discussion group you can imagine that doesn't work for me.

7.01 So for the first lesson I went over class creation, attributes, and methods. The lab was changed to just ask them to create a class and a method that sets the attributes. Essentially an init method but not init yet. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1v-03EpGBxwvYl3tUei4xTI2iQWWns9wZye3NKDP4htc/edit?usp=sharing

7.02 is not changed. They learn about a better way to initialize with the init method.

7.03 Mostly unchanged. The lab is changed to just ask them to create a str method. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wnYQXib_DGD5hIXH15D7w9Lyq8LRm9-KHa9iMsqq52c/edit?usp=sharing
Notice that we are using a piece of our Zork game that was moved to Unit 6 as the basis for the lab.

7.04 is not changed. They learn about inheritance.

7.05 is a new lesson. In this lesson I put everything they have learned together with super() and double dispatch. They are then given a lab to create add methods for two classes. Basically the Kangaroo lab from 7.03 but using double dispatch. They have items and backpacks. You can add an item to a backpack or a backpack to an item. However, you may not add two items or two backpacks together. That will print an error. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fLtSQPkeQyVOJTsL5sAyODp6V6nlFfR7Nh-sFrFnBeA/edit?usp=sharing

[Dan-TEALS]

Hi Don, I appreciate your viewpoint on this. I agree that, while the approach in the curriculum may be "Pythonic," it's not good OOP. The structure of unit 7 reflects the approach taken by Allen Downey in the Think Python text that was the basis for the Python curriculum.

To be honest, with the curriculum going into maintenance mode, I'm not sure we're going to change the current approach, but I will keep your suggestions in mind as I update unit 7.

[jdonwells]

I would not call it Pythonic.

I did some research on Think Python it started out as a Java book. There is an old saying. You can write FORTRAN code in any language.

[Dan-TEALS]

The forward to Think Python points out that it was a rewrite of the Java textbook How to Think Like a Computer Scientist that Allen Downey wrote after realizing that Java was too confusing for students starting out in programming. For the most part, Think Python reflects the style and content of the Python.org tutorials. In fact, the use of an empty class is shown in the Python.org tutorials as a way to create the equivalent of a C struct.

I do agree that we shouldn't lead with an example of adding attributes to an empty class. It's confusing and poor OOP, but it is definitely something embraced as one approach to using classes by the Python Foundation. I'll definitely be taking a close look at lesson 7.1 as we revise it.

Thanks, as always. for your valuable feedback, Don.