41–50 of 102 posts
At UBC CS a few years ago they made a switch in the opposite direction, from Java to Racket for their intro course. I think this was a very good decision because it allowed them to spend less time teaching syntax (which in racket is very simple) and more time focusing on fundamental topics such as graphs, recursion, functional programming, and test driven development. Compared to the equivalent intro programming cour…
I think it would be doing a disservice to other students if they didn't switch. The rationale given was a great one actually. OOO is there for a reason. I do not like the idea that FP is the answer for everything.
I understand many students used Python, C++, etc. This was the case for me as well. I did not go to any lectures for the Introductory course. I spent my time wisely studying for other Engineering classes (in reality: I actually didn't do shit and did other activities). You should do the same too.
What I am trying to say is, just because you already know OOO because you took the initiative before University (which I think - and I am biased - is a good thing to do), does not mean everyone else has. University is about teaching a body of students, all of education revolves around the mean of this body of students. It is a sad fact, but no professor or department or University will give you the unique attention you deserve; this is why I would not suggest University for that purpose. I only did University to get a piece of paper. I learned most programming stuff on my own time, before going in.
Teaching OOO, an easier of the two (FP/OOO), is a good thing. And teaching it in Python.. is a great thing. Kudos to MIT
I think instead, it is a better idea to keep Python/OOO as first year and in second year start teaching FP in whatever language. Or perhaps teach them both in first year. I think we just need to realize that when we go to University/School, we will have to walk at the pace of the "mean" even if that requires having to run (to catch up) or crawl (to slow down). Sad reality.
Edit: I just noticed that if I press the post button twice, it makes two posts. I deleted the dupe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If students have years of programming experience, why are they being made to take programming 101?
When you say "programming 101" you might not be talking about the MIT courses being discussed here. 6.001 was a course in functional programming, based on the book Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. 6.01 (the replacement course that uses Python) is a project-based course involving robots and stuff. Neither of these courses depend on any specific knowledge, but they would be very difficult courses if y…
That, right there, is the reason why I end up using Python so often.
As dynamic languages go, Python is not the best for anything, but it's good enough for almost everything, and there's probably already a library implemented for it.
Berkeley made the same switch at around the same time, and it made me sad. Having done the intro course in Scheme, I'd say it helped me understand functional programming far more than I ever could have with Python, and it opened me up to different ways of thinking. Even though I never again used any Lisp variant, I'm still really glad I learned it and feel that what I learned using Lisp has informed my future decisio…
The switch occurred while I was at Berkeley and it also made me sad. I loved that course so much I decided to TA for the self-paced version which kept SICP and Scheme. Brian Harvey explained the decision to switch here: "But, as I keep saying, the choice of programming language isn't the main point. I get upset when students, even the students who like 61A, refer to it as "the Scheme course." It's not a course about…
That's Berkeley. Abelson and Sussman once got MIT to trademark "Nerd Pride".[1] MIT still keeps the trademark active. Here's a Nerd Pride button.[2]
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=LJq0JhoElk8C&lpg=PA78&ots=... [2] http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/E1312
[2] http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/E1312
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it is a required subject in your curriculum? You don't get to pass people just because they say they know something.
If a student claims to know what the class would teach, you don't have to take their word for it: you can talk to them, or you can give them a test. (I skipped the first two intro CS classes in college after talking to the professors and figuring out the right place to start given my background.)
One of my friends was able to skip 61a by meeting with the department chair, Paul Hilfinger, and convincing him that 61a would be a waste of time for him. My friend could drone on and on about the simplest of subjects so we assumed he just annoyed Hilfinger until he said "enough already".
I took 6.001 in 1999 (I think). Hal Abelson taught it along with a professor who took off his sweatshirt to reveal a Microsoft tee at his final lecture (he went to Microsoft). What was great about Scheme (Lisp) is that most programs are basically words from your vocabulary, parentheses, and cars and cdrs. With procedural languages, there is always a sense that the language provides all the tools, and the magic happen…
My favorite section is where they go over making a constraint based system that will either calculate degrees F or degrees C. Or validate that the two given values are accurate. All depending on what you have entered. And this is done from the ground up. No hidden magic of the system has to support you, by and large. (Not strictly true, as this does make use of GC and such throughout.)
If you hadn't seen it, https://www.infoq.com/presentations/We-Really-Dont-Know-How-... is a great video showing Sussman's style. He also showcases a program they wrote that could solve circuits based on this general idea.
I took 6.001 in 1999 (I think). Hal Abelson taught it along with a professor who took off his sweatshirt to reveal a Microsoft tee at his final lecture (he went to Microsoft). What was great about Scheme (Lisp) is that most programs are basically words from your vocabulary, parentheses, and cars and cdrs. With procedural languages, there is always a sense that the language provides all the tools, and the magic happen…
By far the most rewarding class I've taken at MIT. Check out the psets, they're pretty fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The switch occurred while I was at Berkeley and it also made me sad. I loved that course so much I decided to TA for the self-paced version which kept SICP and Scheme. Brian Harvey explained the decision to switch here: "But, as I keep saying, the choice of programming language isn't the main point. I get upset when students, even the students who like 61A, refer to it as "the Scheme course." It's not a course about…
That's a brave and thoroughgoing attempt to, among other things, attract non-nerds to computer science. That's Berkeley. Abelson and Sussman once got MIT to trademark "Nerd Pride".[1] MIT still keeps the trademark active. Here's a Nerd Pride button.[2] [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=LJq0JhoElk8C&lpg=PA78&ots=... [2] http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/E1312 [2] http://www.computerhistory.org/col…
2. I think you are focusing too much on the use of the word "nerd" here. Harvey chose the use of that word, not MIT.