3 ms·

Thanks, that's a great letter which should get more exposure. The issue is ultimately vocational vs. professional. If someone wants to do data science then Pyth

Thanks, that's a great letter which should get more exposure. The issue is ultimately vocational vs. professional. If someone wants to do data science then Python is appropriate, but someone who is going on to do CS is going to need something more rigorous. Traditionally there are two kinds of rigour (a) systems language with explicit memory management (learning the machine model) (b) functional language like Haskell or Scheme that forces a reboot of "what does programming mean?" and makes mathematical reasoning possible. With the right curriculum and supporting materials, Rust is nicely positioned to accommodate both kinds of rigour.

cies 8y ago
I'm not saying any way is better than the other. I see advantages/disadvantages either way. I do thing we should have a broad view, especially in higher education (not simply teach the specific trick that the industry needs, but teach generic skills that work no matter what field they are applied to). While I was on the advisory board of an institution of higher education I tried to show them that "going with JS in the first year" because it is such a lingua franca is IMHO not the best choice. They did it anyway. They want the students to make flashy apps asap. I was proposing to use the SICP for the first years, mainly for two reasons: * create a leveled playing field, as some students already know JS before starting the course * learn concepts, not how-to-make-an-app (for which you have to know many techs that simply clutter the minds, like HTML and CSS) > With the right curriculum and supporting materials, Rust is nicely positioned to accommodate both kinds of rigour. Disagree. I think it does the (a) thing well, but only little of the (b) thing.