Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

wisdomandwonder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#91

Post by agumonkey »

evdev wrote: post #2

I think there's a tension between two imperatives in teaching new programmers: 1) Learning must be applied learning. Give people problems to solve and they will come to you for data structures and algorithms, O notation, etc. If they don't, they should do something else 2) A lot of what's out there in programming languages are cargo cults, and newbies need to be prepared for this. For instance, virtual function inher…

I kinda despise the notion that assembly is everything. It's better than falsely higher abstraction like cpp and java but it's not all.

Inductive logic and the functional paradigm maps onto all of these. And allows for more diverse abstractions without lying either.

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#92

Post by ParanoidBeing »

brianberns wrote: post #62
evdev wrote: post #2

I think there's a tension between two imperatives in teaching new programmers: 1) Learning must be applied learning. Give people problems to solve and they will come to you for data structures and algorithms, O notation, etc. If they don't, they should do something else 2) A lot of what's out there in programming languages are cargo cults, and newbies need to be prepared for this. For instance, virtual function inher…

My problem with this sort of bottom-up approach to learning how to program is that what seems "fundamental" from one point of view always turns out to be an abstraction built on an even lower-level foundation. So, virtual functions aren't real because they're just vtables implemented in C. But C isn't real because it's just fancy assembly language. But assembly language isn't real because it's just fancy machine lang…

I personally agree with your inclination to teach them using a clean functional language.

I'm sure it would be possible to produce a few excellent software developers doing the bottom up approach as well, starting with a course on hardware, then assembly and then going up the stack from there. I would have loved that approach personally, but it would probably turn the average CS student into an awful programmer.

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#93

Post by Myrmornis »

Myrmornis wrote: post #82

All I knew about Sussman prior to reading that quote was that he was an author of SICP. Now I'll think of him as a tedious and arrogant curmudgeon. Can someone give me a nice quote by him to make that go away?

To be clear, that was a serious criticism. Pretending that there was no particular reason for choosing python is a classic case of being unwilling to credit others (python authors) for their hard work, and is thus arrogant, ungrateful and dismissive. Claiming that "back in my day programmers had to think hard" is a classic case of being tedious and curmudgeonly.

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#94

Post by watersb »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #54
tmccrmck wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But many students come in with years of programming in a language like Python, Java, or C++. My friends and I built video games when we were in high school so we were comfortable in all three of those languages. Scheme levels the playing field. I have never encountered a student who entered university with years of functional programming experience and I was a TA for an introductory CS course. I think moving back to…

Today it is not "many" students who come in to college with programming exp; for instance Berkeley's CS61A, which also moved to Python has over 1300 students. The overwhelming majority have not taken CS classes before.

Dang. 61A with SICP was my favorite class.

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#95

Post by brianberns »

sanderjd wrote: post #80
brianberns wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with this sort of bottom-up approach to learning how to program is that what seems "fundamental" from one point of view always turns out to be an abstraction built on an even lower-level foundation. So, virtual functions aren't real because they're just vtables implemented in C. But C isn't real because it's just fancy assembly language. But assembly language isn't real because it's just fancy machine lang…

> So I have to learn how integrated circuits work before learning how to program? No. I took a couple classes in college that were designed to teach what is going on underneath the 1s and 0s of instruction sets. I didn't take the classes about how circuits work, but they existed, I had friends who took them, and I really wish I had as well. Maybe this isn't required knowledge to do software engineering, but it's defi…

I agree that these are useful and interesting things to learn. I just don't agree that they should be taught first when learning to program.

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#96

Post by [deleted] »

brianberns wrote: post #62
evdev wrote: post #2

I think there's a tension between two imperatives in teaching new programmers: 1) Learning must be applied learning. Give people problems to solve and they will come to you for data structures and algorithms, O notation, etc. If they don't, they should do something else 2) A lot of what's out there in programming languages are cargo cults, and newbies need to be prepared for this. For instance, virtual function inher…

My problem with this sort of bottom-up approach to learning how to program is that what seems "fundamental" from one point of view always turns out to be an abstraction built on an even lower-level foundation. So, virtual functions aren't real because they're just vtables implemented in C. But C isn't real because it's just fancy assembly language. But assembly language isn't real because it's just fancy machine lang…

[deleted]

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#97

Post by eecc »

I trained electronic eng and never gave a thought to informatics, too much theory, more math than anything else, OOP and RUP is all there is to it anyways so whatever.

I ended up in IT and programming, and when I bumped into SICP I regretted the 10 years spent without having read it already.

Someone commented that it's the first and last book you should read at Uni, and I totally agree

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#98

Post by wolfgke »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #54
tmccrmck wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But many students come in with years of programming in a language like Python, Java, or C++. My friends and I built video games when we were in high school so we were comfortable in all three of those languages. Scheme levels the playing field. I have never encountered a student who entered university with years of functional programming experience and I was a TA for an introductory CS course. I think moving back to…

Today it is not "many" students who come in to college with programming exp; for instance Berkeley's CS61A, which also moved to Python has over 1300 students. The overwhelming majority have not taken CS classes before.

> The overwhelming majority have not taken CS classes before.

When I want to university I never took a CS class before and nevertheless could program really well. I believe one is not able to go to a university if one is not able to teach oneself the prerequirements of the subject that one want to study.

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#99

Post by sanderjd »

brianberns wrote: post #95
sanderjd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I have to learn how integrated circuits work before learning how to program? No. I took a couple classes in college that were designed to teach what is going on underneath the 1s and 0s of instruction sets. I didn't take the classes about how circuits work, but they existed, I had friends who took them, and I really wish I had as well. Maybe this isn't required knowledge to do software engineering, but it's defi…

I agree that these are useful and interesting things to learn. I just don't agree that they should be taught first when learning to program.

Sure, I agree.

Re: Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

#100

Post by eximius »

brianberns wrote: post #62
evdev wrote: post #2

I think there's a tension between two imperatives in teaching new programmers: 1) Learning must be applied learning. Give people problems to solve and they will come to you for data structures and algorithms, O notation, etc. If they don't, they should do something else 2) A lot of what's out there in programming languages are cargo cults, and newbies need to be prepared for this. For instance, virtual function inher…

My problem with this sort of bottom-up approach to learning how to program is that what seems "fundamental" from one point of view always turns out to be an abstraction built on an even lower-level foundation. So, virtual functions aren't real because they're just vtables implemented in C. But C isn't real because it's just fancy assembly language. But assembly language isn't real because it's just fancy machine lang…

I think a relatively balanced approach is desireable, as in most things.

Sure, start the freshman off with Python. Let them get their feet wet and see whether they even enjoy this dark art at all. Besides, knowing about the hardware before "Hello World" isn't very helpful.

After their intro class, you don't do bottom up or top down. You start at both ends and work your way in. You got your computer systems course which teaches C and a smattering of assembly and hardware and your algorithms and data structures class that can use an easier language like (python/scheme) to reduce the cognitive overhead to teach the material.

If the students are taking these at the same time and the professors coordinate to explain how they relate at the various levels, you get very balanced developers. (Assuming they do well in the classes!)

Post reply on HN