4 ms·

Your arguments appear to be of your own construction, not of mine. I never said Scheme is an ideal language for teaching, you did. Yet in the same thread, you d

Your arguments appear to be of your own construction, not of mine. I never said Scheme is an ideal language for teaching, you did. Yet in the same thread, you deride "elegant" languages as only being elegant in the small. This thread is about devising a new language for teaching. If the Scheme is only elegant in the small, why would we use it for teaching? We would devise a language that isn't anything like Scheme if we believed what you profess to believe. If "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros make it easily to build very powerful tools," why wouldn't we teach with a language featuring "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros?" Overall, I get the strong impression that you like Java and don't like Scheme. Have at it, you are not alone. But there is no reason for me to debate that with you, since at no time have I said that I prefer Scheme to Java for teaching or for industry. My claim is, essentially, that if we are designing a single new language, then whatever characteristics we think are appropriate for demonstrating CS concepts will also be appropriate for business. I voiced no objection to static typing or rigid syntax or lack of macros. You did.

cageface 16y ago
If "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros make it easily to build very powerful tools," why wouldn't we teach with a language featuring "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros? Because the point of CS education is to teach concepts, not tools, and all of those features actually obscure the core ideas. It's the same reason that code examples in textbooks aren't littered with the kinds of error handling code that real production code requires. It's the same reason that medical students work on cadavers before getting anywhere close to a real operating room and all the extra risks and distractions that entails. Overall, I get the strong impression that you like Java and don't like Scheme. No, I'm just not one of those people that tends to assume that industry programmers are either stupid and/or ignorant for hesitating to build commercial apps in research languages.
- raganwald 16y ago
  You equate "teaching language" with "research language." You believe that a language with rigid syntax, static typing, and built-in OO would obscure the core ideas of computer science. Fine. You believe that. I'm sure you grasp that others, especially the list of people mentioned in the post, do not share your views. So, what we have here is that you have certain beliefs about what makes a language suitable for teaching and what makes a language suitable for industry, and on the basis of your views, you do not believe that the same language would be suitable for both purposes. I accept logically that your conclusions are compatible with your beliefs. I don't understand your last sentence. It seems to be some sort of axe grinding, as I certainly don't recall saying anything about industry programmers being ignorant or stupid. So all together, I can't think of anything new to add to this thread. I feel like a foil used for you to set up and demolish your own arguments.

cageface 16y ago

If "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros make it easily to build very powerful tools," why wouldn't we teach with a language featuring "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros? Because the point of CS education is to teach concepts, not tools, and all of those features actually obscure the core ideas. It's the same reason that code examples in textbooks aren't littered with the kinds of error handling code that real production code requires. It's the same reason that medical students work on cadavers before getting anywhere close to a real operating room and all the extra risks and distractions that entails. Overall, I get the strong impression that you like Java and don't like Scheme. No, I'm just not one of those people that tends to assume that industry programmers are either stupid and/or ignorant for hesitating to build commercial apps in research languages.

raganwald 16y ago
You equate "teaching language" with "research language." You believe that a language with rigid syntax, static typing, and built-in OO would obscure the core ideas of computer science. Fine. You believe that. I'm sure you grasp that others, especially the list of people mentioned in the post, do not share your views. So, what we have here is that you have certain beliefs about what makes a language suitable for teaching and what makes a language suitable for industry, and on the basis of your views, you do not believe that the same language would be suitable for both purposes. I accept logically that your conclusions are compatible with your beliefs. I don't understand your last sentence. It seems to be some sort of axe grinding, as I certainly don't recall saying anything about industry programmers being ignorant or stupid. So all together, I can't think of anything new to add to this thread. I feel like a foil used for you to set up and demolish your own arguments.