The Stanford Daily's article is a much better source: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/02/28/cs-department-updates-introductory-courses/ http://www.stanforddai

The Stanford Daily's article is a much better source: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/02/28/cs-department-updates-introductory-courses/ http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/02/28/cs-department-update... This quote stands out: > The computer science department has cycled through several languages over the past decades. When Roberts came to Stanford in 1990, CS106A was still taught in Pascal, a programming language he described as not “clean.” The department adopted the C language in 1992. Moving to C makes sense, but the rest of that statement is extraordinary and needs examination. In 1990, Pascal was widely used, as many Hacker News contributors can attest to. In fact, it was designed for clarity, with teaching one of the design's use cases - the other being clarity for a pro coder - and was widely used for many years by many CS courses for exactly that reason. Some schools still use it in its modern OO form Delphi. Javascript is widely regarded as a less than ideal language. On HN this is preaching to the converted, but: http://www.javascriptgotchas.com/gotchas/common-javascript-errors-and-mistakes.html http://www.javascriptgotchas.com/gotchas/common-javascript-e... and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12694530/what-is-typescript-and-why-would-i-use-it-in-place-of-javascript/35048303#35048303 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12694530/what-is-typescri... both contain good material. So the same person who considered Pascal - a clarity-focused and teaching language - unsuitable for teaching, considers Javascript - an unclear and confusing language with lack of type safety and many widely known gotchas, such that many people move to the Pascal-ish or C#-ish Typescript - as suitable?