Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
chrisdone.com
Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
1–10 of 253 posts
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#2I have to say that Java is the absolute worst language for pedagogy. Before people can write "Hello world", they're told they have to write "public static void main(String[] args)", which are presented as magic incantations, "don't worry about those yet". Thus begins the corporate-style coding culture of bashing stuff without understanding it.
The stated reason for starting in Java is so that students can get coding jobs based on one or two CS classes, but two issues come to mind there. First, I generally wouldn't hire someone (in a technology company) who took one CS class and didn't continue-- but at least if she passed an SICP-style course, I'd know that she learned how to think about computational problems. Second, you don't "know Java" when you come out of school. Java is actually highly complicated (in good ways and bad) and the average college student hasn't been exposed to all the mess of it (and that's probably good, because, while OOP means about 20 different things to different people, business-style OOP is cataclysmic).
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#3A problem I've noticed in my degree is that for a certain percentage of students Java just doesn't stick. I'm in my fourth year now and there are plenty of people who just can't program, because they've only been taught Java, and they didn't get that. It's far too big a language to teach in a semester or two to a previous non-programmer.
Even if it does sink in they rapidly find that the simplified Java being taught at first year undergraduate level is far below the standard required for real world Java programming.
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#4Lots of good quotes in here, particularly:
> It is not only the violin that shapes the violinist, we are all shaped by the tools we train ourselves to use, and in this respect programming languages have a devious influence: they shape our thinking habits.
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#5I have to say that Java is the absolute worst language for pedagogy. Before people can write "Hello world", they're told they have to write "public static void main(String[] args)", which are presented as magic incantations, "don't worry about those yet". Thus begins the corporate-style coding culture of bashing stuff without understanding it. The stated reason for starting in Java is so that students can get coding…
While I personally agree with teaching something other than Java, there is one big advantage of Java you have overlooked-- as the core language is so simple, bugs caused by incorrect use of the language tend to be "shallow" (bugs caused by algorithmic mistakes can still be very complex of course).
An easy example of this is compile-time errors -- the most complex compile time error you can get of Java tends to be nothing more than "mismatched bracket" or "incorrect function call", whereas even fairly simple Haskell code can produce very complex error messages, and ghci (for example) tends to make things worse rather than better.
Java isn't perfect and has been getting more complicated, boxing & generics for example, but still is not close to the pain one can create in a handfu of characters in Haskell (of course, C++ has the same problem, for different reasons).
Personally, I see Haskell as the C++ of functional language, and therefore would prefer not to teach either Haskell or C++ as a first language.
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#6I have to say that Java is the absolute worst language for pedagogy. Before people can write "Hello world", they're told they have to write "public static void main(String[] args)", which are presented as magic incantations, "don't worry about those yet". Thus begins the corporate-style coding culture of bashing stuff without understanding it. The stated reason for starting in Java is so that students can get coding…
While I personally agree with teaching something other than Java, there is one big advantage of Java you have overlooked-- as the core language is so simple, bugs caused by incorrect use of the language tend to be "shallow" (bugs caused by algorithmic mistakes can still be very complex of course). An easy example of this is compile-time errors -- the most complex compile time error you can get of Java tends to be not…
If Haskell is the C++ of functional languages, what, in your opinion, is the C of functional languages ?
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I personally agree with teaching something other than Java, there is one big advantage of Java you have overlooked-- as the core language is so simple, bugs caused by incorrect use of the language tend to be "shallow" (bugs caused by algorithmic mistakes can still be very complex of course). An easy example of this is compile-time errors -- the most complex compile time error you can get of Java tends to be not…
If Haskell is the C++ of functional languages, what, in your opinion, is the C of functional languages ?
Scheme.
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#8I have to say that Java is the absolute worst language for pedagogy. Before people can write "Hello world", they're told they have to write "public static void main(String[] args)", which are presented as magic incantations, "don't worry about those yet". Thus begins the corporate-style coding culture of bashing stuff without understanding it. The stated reason for starting in Java is so that students can get coding…
Just because you should not explain to students what "public static void main(String[] args)" is the first day does not mean that you can never teach them. Actually, if your students cannot understand what this line is after one full class of Java, then the problem is with the teacher, not the students.
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#9A problem I've noticed in my degree is that for a certain percentage of students Java just doesn't stick. I'm in my fourth year now and there are plenty of people who just can't program, because they've only been taught Java, and they didn't get that. It's far too big a language to teach in a semester or two to a previous non-programmer. Even if it does sink in they rapidly find that the simplified Java being taught…
Java is definitely a terrible language for teaching and as a student's first introduction to arrays, memory handling and flow control it's pure terrible. However, Java is incredibly effective as a language for large teams. Since most of the companies coming to hire CS grads are big teams in need of extra hands on their software projects, they are looking for CS grads who know Java. So Java in universities is generally the ivory tower being forced by business constraints to adapt to outside business interests.
My university down here taught in Scheme for the introduction and theory classes, and in Java for algorithms and networking. Seemed to work well as a balance, although I'm not sure if they still do that.
Re: Dijkstra on Haskell and Java (2001)
#10I have to say that Java is the absolute worst language for pedagogy. Before people can write "Hello world", they're told they have to write "public static void main(String[] args)", which are presented as magic incantations, "don't worry about those yet". Thus begins the corporate-style coding culture of bashing stuff without understanding it. The stated reason for starting in Java is so that students can get coding…
While I personally agree with teaching something other than Java, there is one big advantage of Java you have overlooked-- as the core language is so simple, bugs caused by incorrect use of the language tend to be "shallow" (bugs caused by algorithmic mistakes can still be very complex of course). An easy example of this is compile-time errors -- the most complex compile time error you can get of Java tends to be not…
> the most complex compile time error you can get of Java tends to be nothing more than "mismatched bracket" or "incorrect function call"
… following with the NullPointerException in runtime