4 ms·
But you do need a computer to teach programming (generally.) The US has generally been about efficiency, there isn't much need wasting time on paper with a prob
by partiallypro 7y ago
But you do need a computer to teach programming (generally.) The US has generally been about efficiency, there isn't much need wasting time on paper with a problem when we can understand the concept and solve the problem with a computer. That's my opinion of course, as an American. So I'm biased. When I was taking advanced math classes, my first thought when presented a concept was "how can I solve this by writing a calculator program to do it for me." Maybe that isn't common, I don't know, but while it might not be what everyone does...I think that is the American thinking on learning things.
- gowld 7y agoThis is also why Dijkstra said Americans did hardware and programming while Europeans did theoretical computer science.
- silentwanderer 7y agoMathematics and problem solving are not mutually exclusive - understanding one is usually a sign you understand the other. Programming is just a layer of abstraction over one of these things.
- rimliu 7y agoI actually am very glad that we did not have computers in my school at the end of the 80ies. This was in Lithuania, then a part of the USSR. We had programming classes, so without the computers we were taught the basic concepts: variables, assignment, conditions, loops. Just concepts in a pseudolanguage. Later, when I had access to the computers learning the languages boiled down to "what's the syntax for this concept?" And then writing my programs with a pen and paper because I had no computer at home for a few more years. Now I sometimes shake my head when I see comments like "I do not know programming, which language (or worse—fraamework) should I learn?" It is so tempting to say "duh, learn programming and worry about the languages later".