4 ms·

Wow, just read that bit about "HtDP and Colleagues". What a pretentious bit of writing with no actual arguments. The strawman they propose is just one argument,

by acbart 8y ago

Wow, just read that bit about "HtDP and Colleagues". What a pretentious bit of writing with no actual arguments. The strawman they propose is just one argument, and is not the one I would reach for when arguing against Racket in CS1. I am open to being persuaded about these silly language wars, but the argument there is completely uncompelling. I hope they have the real back-and-forth laid out somewhere else.

noelwelsh 8y ago
If you wanted to make your comment useful to other readers, describing the argument you would reach for would be a good step. I read the same section and thought it was a reasonable response to an objection I have seen come up (slightly different context---it wasn't HtDP but still a change to the introductory programming course.)
- skrishnamurthi 8y ago
  Well put.
justinpombrio 8y ago
HtDP is not about the language. It's about the design recipe, which is a structured way to go about programming that is not language specific, and is sometimes used in other languages like Java. And even Felleisen's HtDP course isn't taught in Racket: it's taught in a sequence of "student languages". EDIT: Some of this is mentioned on these pages, but not explained very well if you hadn't heard of HtDP. See some of the better links that other commenters have posted.
- baldfat 8y ago
  Well technically Racket is a Programming Language for making Programming Languages. So you are making a subset language from Racket.
  - skrishnamurthi 8y ago
    We know that, thanks. (Co-author of both book and language here.) It doesn't obviate the point that @justinpombrio was trying to make, which is the relevant response to the parent post.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Wow, just read that bit about "HtDP and Colleagues". What a pretentious bit of writing with no actual arguments. Taking your points in reverse order: Yes, it doesn't make an argument. It doesn't hold itself out as an argument, but as a narrative relating of personal experience and recommendation of how to address similar experiences. Not every piece of human communication is or needs to be an argument. Is it pretentious? Maybe; I mean, it clearly engages in what it belatedly admits is a potentially overgeneralization of personal experience, and one could view from overweighting one's own experience as pretentious. But...whatever. It does, even if it is at the very end, acknowledge the issue. > The strawman they propose is just one argument, and is not the one I would reach for when arguing against Racket in CS1 Presumably, you are not one of the author’s colleagues at Northeastern; also, Racket is only used in HtDP in the sense that the student languages are themselves implemented in Racket; each is its own distinct Racket/Scheme-like language, but is neither Racket nor Scheme. Also, it doesn'tt address a single objection to the HtDP pedagogical approach, but several which it views as having a common underlying motivation. > I am open to being persuaded about these silly language wars While there are suggestions in the article for dealing with resistance to the HtDP method, those suggestions (and most of the objections they address) are not language wars, or even language-based. If you were open to being persuaded, you would probably at least have read closely enough to recognize that. > but the argument there is completely uncompelling There is not even an argument being made; it's advice on how to mollify certain objections, not an argument aimed at rebutting them. The audience isn't people that need to be convinced that HtDP is a good approach, and what it presents also isn't an argument to be used on resistors. It assumes that the audience is not only already convinced, but in also in a position (as the author was during the experience motivating this) where they don't need to convince resistors by argument, but where they are free enough that they can mollify them with accommodations and while proving the value of the mechanism by experience in action.
- skrishnamurthi 8y ago
  This is a lovely deconstruction.
skrishnamurthi 8y ago
It's amusing that you get so riled up about a page that is not only not about "language wars", it's in fact exactly about taking a multi-lingual perspective _instead_ of getting bogged down in a language war.
skrishnamurthi 8y ago
By the way, that page is based on discussions correspondents of the HtDP authors have had in dozens of departments. Without that experience, I'm not sure quite how you can even judge what is written there beyond your claim about the writing style (which you are of course welcome to judge independently of any data).

by acbart 8y ago

noelwelsh 8y ago

If you wanted to make your comment useful to other readers, describing the argument you would reach for would be a good step. I read the same section and thought it was a reasonable response to an objection I have seen come up (slightly different context---it wasn't HtDP but still a change to the introductory programming course.)

skrishnamurthi 8y ago
Well put.

justinpombrio 8y ago

HtDP is not about the language. It's about the design recipe, which is a structured way to go about programming that is not language specific, and is sometimes used in other languages like Java. And even Felleisen's HtDP course isn't taught in Racket: it's taught in a sequence of "student languages". EDIT: Some of this is mentioned on these pages, but not explained very well if you hadn't heard of HtDP. See some of the better links that other commenters have posted.

baldfat 8y ago
Well technically Racket is a Programming Language for making Programming Languages. So you are making a subset language from Racket.
- skrishnamurthi 8y ago
  We know that, thanks. (Co-author of both book and language here.) It doesn't obviate the point that @justinpombrio was trying to make, which is the relevant response to the parent post.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Wow, just read that bit about "HtDP and Colleagues". What a pretentious bit of writing with no actual arguments. Taking your points in reverse order: Yes, it doesn't make an argument. It doesn't hold itself out as an argument, but as a narrative relating of personal experience and recommendation of how to address similar experiences. Not every piece of human communication is or needs to be an argument. Is it pretentious? Maybe; I mean, it clearly engages in what it belatedly admits is a potentially overgeneralization of personal experience, and one could view from overweighting one's own experience as pretentious. But...whatever. It does, even if it is at the very end, acknowledge the issue. > The strawman they propose is just one argument, and is not the one I would reach for when arguing against Racket in CS1 Presumably, you are not one of the author’s colleagues at Northeastern; also, Racket is only used in HtDP in the sense that the student languages are themselves implemented in Racket; each is its own distinct Racket/Scheme-like language, but is neither Racket nor Scheme. Also, it doesn'tt address a single objection to the HtDP pedagogical approach, but several which it views as having a common underlying motivation. > I am open to being persuaded about these silly language wars While there are suggestions in the article for dealing with resistance to the HtDP method, those suggestions (and most of the objections they address) are not language wars, or even language-based. If you were open to being persuaded, you would probably at least have read closely enough to recognize that. > but the argument there is completely uncompelling There is not even an argument being made; it's advice on how to mollify certain objections, not an argument aimed at rebutting them. The audience isn't people that need to be convinced that HtDP is a good approach, and what it presents also isn't an argument to be used on resistors. It assumes that the audience is not only already convinced, but in also in a position (as the author was during the experience motivating this) where they don't need to convince resistors by argument, but where they are free enough that they can mollify them with accommodations and while proving the value of the mechanism by experience in action.

skrishnamurthi 8y ago
This is a lovely deconstruction.

skrishnamurthi 8y ago

It's amusing that you get so riled up about a page that is not only not about "language wars", it's in fact exactly about taking a multi-lingual perspective _instead_ of getting bogged down in a language war.

skrishnamurthi 8y ago

By the way, that page is based on discussions correspondents of the HtDP authors have had in dozens of departments. Without that experience, I'm not sure quite how you can even judge what is written there beyond your claim about the writing style (which you are of course welcome to judge independently of any data).