That's flattering - but far from true (at least I hope so). For what you are interested in, I suggest you look at Joel Adam's new book (see LanceA's comments at http://www.alice.org/community/showt...=2153#post2153 ).

I'm making this recommendation without actually having seen the book itself - it's quite pricey and frankly I'm discouraged enough with the current version of Alice that I didn't feel like investing in "yet another textbook" on version 2.0 when this is just a hobby interest for me. I do feel the CMU folks are aware enough of the problems that the next version of Alice will be better (taking a page from Microsoft and others - "Much will be fixed in the next version.")

Additionally don't assume that because I couldn't come up with a better solution, one doesn't exist. Maybe Chuck Herbert or someone else will post a better approach.

Your comments on my approach are both accuate and well stated. In case I wasn't clear on the point, I didn't/don't consider it a good solution in any sense other than the most basic criteria - it does work.

I don't teach programming and don't plan to - but if I did, a big concern with the present version of Alice would be that it almost forces one to accept this minimal definition of "good programming" - and makes even that level of success almost impossible to obtain with such basic tasks as creating Java applets. That has to be discouraging to a student - especially since Alice appears to be very effective in generating a high level of initial interest in a general student population. Even worse, it might discourage them from actually continuing and learning the skills needed to develop truly quality programs.

Jim