3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Surely you don't think that the details of a particular programming language's syntax are an appropriate criteria for gr

by nradov 6mo ago

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Surely you don't think that the details of a particular programming language's syntax are an appropriate criteria for grading an exam? That seems crazy.

aarjaneiro 6mo ago
Sounds fair to me so long as students were aware going into the test that syntax would be graded
- nradov 6mo ago
  Fairness or lack thereof is not the point. Programming language syntax is trade school stuff. And I don't mean that as a slight against trade schools, but it's a different type of training.
j_w 6mo ago
Rethink it in written language: > Surely you don't think that the details of a particular written language's syntax are an appropriate criteria for grading an exam? Computer science is the science of computing. Programming languages are the language used to implement computer science. Therefore you would expect that students accurately use the programming language to answer questions about computing. Seems reasonable to me.
- nradov 6mo ago
  You don't need programming languages to implement computer science. Pseudo code suffices for exams.
  - j_w 6mo ago
    You don't need programming languages to DESCRIBE computer science but to implement it you need some programming language. Quite literally an "implementation detail."
    - nradov 6mo ago
      If instructors are testing implementation details on paper exams then they're really missing the point of CS education. Completely lazy and incompetent, should be terminated.
      - j_w 6mo ago
        It's a balancing act. Some portion of computer science education needs to be practical (implementation details), while some portion needs to be pure computer science (pseudo code). Obviously projects are a good way to measure implementation details, but they are too easily cheated. Every class I took had exams as 80% or more of the grade. Not every class expected accurate syntax on exams, but most expected code rather than pseudo code (typically C).

by nradov 6mo ago

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Surely you don't think that the details of a particular programming language's syntax are an appropriate criteria for grading an exam? That seems crazy.

aarjaneiro 6mo ago

Sounds fair to me so long as students were aware going into the test that syntax would be graded

nradov 6mo ago
Fairness or lack thereof is not the point. Programming language syntax is trade school stuff. And I don't mean that as a slight against trade schools, but it's a different type of training.

j_w 6mo ago

Rethink it in written language: > Surely you don't think that the details of a particular written language's syntax are an appropriate criteria for grading an exam? Computer science is the science of computing. Programming languages are the language used to implement computer science. Therefore you would expect that students accurately use the programming language to answer questions about computing. Seems reasonable to me.

nradov 6mo ago
You don't need programming languages to implement computer science. Pseudo code suffices for exams.
- j_w 6mo ago
  You don't need programming languages to DESCRIBE computer science but to implement it you need some programming language. Quite literally an "implementation detail."
  - nradov 6mo ago
    If instructors are testing implementation details on paper exams then they're really missing the point of CS education. Completely lazy and incompetent, should be terminated.
    - j_w 6mo ago
      It's a balancing act. Some portion of computer science education needs to be practical (implementation details), while some portion needs to be pure computer science (pseudo code). Obviously projects are a good way to measure implementation details, but they are too easily cheated. Every class I took had exams as 80% or more of the grade. Not every class expected accurate syntax on exams, but most expected code rather than pseudo code (typically C).