Subject: Re: what we're up against
From: Keunwoo Lee (klee@cs.washington.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 09 2001 - 13:20:31 PST
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Craig Chambers wrote:
> I had a similar reaction when I, half-joking, suggested that we teach
> 326 (ugrad data structures) in a language like ML, thinking that
> pattern-matching etc. would make it easy to express algorithms, in
> contrast to C or C++. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that 326
> wasn't about pushing some language religion, but about algorithms, so
> using C or C++ was right.
It is utterly astounding that anybody would claim that teaching any
computer science concept using C++ is a good idea. I suppose most faculty
have completely forgotten what it's like to be in the trenches, trying to
make C++ palatable to students who are baffled and frustrated by its dense
syntax, weird irregularities, and kitchen-sink "design philosophy".
Those who both pass 143 and get into our department have managed to cope,
but we only get those results by massive student attrition. After a
quarter of 143, many students are turned off to programming and resentful
of the byzantine complexity which they have been forced to cram into their
heads. And I doubt that the scant weeks or months between the end of 143
and the beginning of 326 have changed these students dramatically, so that
they are now ready to embrace C++ with tears of joy.
Faculty may know this on some intellectual level, but frankly giving a
200-person lecture, or teaching a majors-only class, does not give you the
same appreciation for this phenomenon as standing in front of twenty-five
non-majors in an intro course, trying to explain why assigning to a stack
variable discards fields.
I know that you all probably already know this, but I had to vent anyway.
~k.lee
_______________________________________________
Cecil mailing list
Cecil@cs.washington.edu
http://majordomo.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/cecil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Mar 09 2001 - 13:21:03 PST