4 ms·
The only problem with including (2) and (3) into an undergraduate CS curriculum is that you inevitably have to push other subject matter out in order to make ro
by jobeirne 18y ago
The only problem with including (2) and (3) into an undergraduate CS curriculum is that you inevitably have to push other subject matter out in order to make room for those guys. If you teach them explicitly, that is. Besides, those subjects are more within the domain of software engineering, which certainly merits distinction from CS, a point this article does well in alluding to.
I'd much prefer that additional programming paradigms were taught to undergrads; something different than the vanilla procedural/OO duo that is the unfortunate captor of so many a CS department. I'd argue that parallelism and functional programming are topics far more vital to an aspiring computer scientist than things like web frameworks and SQL.
To add to the shopping list, I think a nice proofs class would be worthwhile for CS undergrads. I also think a yearly seminar, project class would be helpful; a class where students can actually MAKE something of their own design.
- jjs 18y ago> I'd argue that parallelism and functional programming are topics far more vital to an aspiring computer scientist than things like web frameworks and SQL. Hell, they're even important for the aspiring web developer: being intimately aware of the flow of state will make any centralized, stateful bottlenecks in your application painfully obvious.
- Retric 18y agoSQL is not procedural/OO and IMO is a great introduction into the functional model. I think replacing most 200 level data structures courses with a detailed understanding of SQL would be far more useful and a great foundation for understanding the point of data structures. EX: Indexes and Explain are a great example of cost benefit analysis that has little to do with procedural coding.