Timeline for Criteria for selecting language for first programming course
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2013 at 7:26 | comment | added | Raphael | @vonbrand Oh, we don't teach them how to program in the industry sense (at least in that course). It's more like an introduction to the paradigm(s), with toy examples. They are expected to follow up on that themselves. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 18:17 | comment | added | vonbrand | @Raphael, "it is important to subject your students to another, radically different, language as soon as possible." is right, but the "as soon as possible" has to be carefully considered. In my experience, people need around a year to really "get" programming in a language (i.e., programming + first data structures). The second language takes a few months, then a month or so gets somebody productive. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 13:55 | comment | added | Kaveh | @JeffE, it is not a primary criteria, but I think if you have options satisfying the other criteria then it can act as a secondary one in choosing between them. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 10:47 | comment | added | evilcandybag | @Kaveh: I never wrote that knowledge of languages used in industry is unimportant. What I mean is that given a solid first programming language, later courses will have no problem teaching students something about what they'll actually do when they graduate. Having been part of teaching several introductory courses myself (as a TA), I'd say the skills you learn there are nothing like the ones needed in industry (there's too little time for that). If this is the case, then I find it better to give them solid concepts so that they can become better programmers, not just $LANGUAGE-programmers. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 8:35 | comment | added | JeffE | @Kaveh: Languages designed for Getting Things Done In The Real World are not necessarily optimal for teaching concepts or developing skills. The goals are very different. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 4:21 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Raphael, or maybe just North American. :) Part of the goal is to prepare the students so they can find jobs in the industry. I think most of these are consistent with what ACM recommend for undergrad curriculum (the task force also has a new draft). | |
| May 20, 2012 at 23:20 | comment | added | Raphael | "it is important to subject your students to another, radically different, language as soon as possible." -- absolutely correct. We set the freshers who think they can program straight by introducing functional programming first: almost all are new to this paradigm, and the more C(++) you have been exposed to the harder it apparently is. | |
| May 20, 2012 at 23:19 | comment | added | Raphael | @Kaveh: That sounds like the curriculum of a technical university to me. | |
| May 20, 2012 at 23:06 | comment | added | Kaveh | Industry relevance can be considered secondary but I don't think it is a minor issue. Since this is an introduction to programming course I don't see why one would want to teach all concepts in it, often there is a second course in programming and another course on the topic of programming language where various languages are discussed, and many other courses concentrated on specific application areas, e.g. programming for web, etc. | |
| May 20, 2012 at 22:43 | history | answered | evilcandybag | CC BY-SA 3.0 |