6 ms·

It's an experiment that I'll never run. CS exam requirements are geared towards OO languages. Students have to analyse and write pseudocode using traditional pr

It's an experiment that I'll never run. CS exam requirements are geared towards OO languages. Students have to analyse and write pseudocode using traditional programming constructs.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
What are CS exam requirements? Are they standardized? I went through the American system, and never had any of my tests biased to OOP (except of course, a Smalltalk chapter in one PL zoo class). Object thinking is easier to wrap one's head around than mathematical formal thinking, but that's just because the former uses the brain's innate linguistic hardware (we learn to talk without much effort) while the latter requires training and practice.
- gamegoblin 12y ago
  Perhaps the commenter is referring to the AP computer science class, which I think is pretty OO based? In my experience at least.
- MarcScott 12y ago
  I teach in the UK. Here's the spec for one of our GCSE courses. http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/ict-and-computer-science/gcse/computer-science-4512 http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/ict-and-computer-science/gcse...
- ucarion 12y ago
  The current AP standards focus a lot on OOP. Here's the latest course description: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-computer-science-a-course-description-2014.pdf http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-comp...
pjmlp 12y ago
In which countries? Just had a look at the curriculum of the Portuguese university I graduated from, a couple of decades ago and they still teach OOP, FP, LP across multiple languages.
mpweiher 12y ago
At the TU-Berlin, our intro courses were held in FP languages, and we were indoctrinated as to the incomparable superiority of the approach...and could see for ourselves how the reality diverged from the hype. That was a good 20 years ago, but I just ran into a current student who told me that's still the case, and they still hate it as much as we did.
- 59nadir 12y ago
  Seems like your university is doing it wrong. While I do believe that the principles used in FP languages are vastly superior I don't think this is really a matter of debate. The advantages are obvious and if you didn't realize it you probably weren't taught well enough. On topic: I sometimes wonder if the wins from FP languages are lost on the people not already scarred by the pitfalls of imperative programming. I wonder the same about someone starting with Python instead of something more wordy and cumbersome. I don't think you really can appreciate the ease of use if you haven't already written tons of boilerplate or type information because the compiler is stupid. At the same time you don't know the price of the ease you're getting, so there is a warped perspective on both the ease of programming and the performance of languages. Haskell, I think, exists in a sort of middle ground where it's actually really fast but extremely expressive. Maybe someone uninitiated in programming won't have as many problems formulating functional solutions to problems in Haskell too.
  - mpweiher 12y ago
    That's exactly the kind of hair-raising and mindless (in the truest sense of the word) nonsense we were presented with: "the superiority of FP is not a matter for debate". The reality was that the tools were slower and buggier than others, the programs different (and slower) but no simpler and the bugs different but stilly just as buggy. When presented so mindlessly and categorically, any claims of superiority instantly lose credibility. When reality is taken into account, even more so.
    - 59nadir 12y ago
      The principles used in FP are actual principles you could employ in imperative languages... and people do, because they are obviously good. It's a matter of there actually being principles instead of the alternative; nothing. This aside, you seem to be talking about the languages themselves, so let's go ahead: > the tools were slower Which tools are these? I don't see this as a systematic failure of FP languages. Which language were you presented with? Did they explain what you're trading your speed of execution for? I'm asking these questions because it doesn't really seem like you got it and this supposedly being 20 years later it seems like you're purposefully not getting it. In these discussions I find that a lot of people believe FP proponents to be very unpragmatic, but I find that in most cases, such as this one, there is little to no concession made on the "other side". Most FP languages are not suitable for performance sensitive tasks and most people will admit this. For most other tasks, though, they're just going to allow you to work faster and get to where you're going with less hassle. I would like to point out that I'm not saying FP languages are just better overall or that an FP language is always the best choice, but I am saying that the principles they employ and teach undeniably are the best. The alternative isn't as much a principle as it is a lack of principle. Flipping individual switches and modifying memory is just not caring.
fractallyte 12y ago
Here's a relevant comment I made just yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7956162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7956162 In short, Scheme (Racket) is regarded as a superior beginner's language because of its simplicity, together with the ability to explore various paradigms (including OO). Beginners in Scheme subsequently did better with Java than those who started solely with Java. I think there's a deep lesson in that...
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  But scheme/racket is really not that far off from java compared to Haskell. I've never had a hard time working with it, even though I've never learned it formally (ok, two weeks of LISP a long time ago). Racket never felt weird, and many of its API are OO in everything but name, it's like C# with the same amount of FP abstractions (list comprehensions), and maybe some macros and continuations if you want to do something advanced. But Haskell really is functional programming, there is no way to accidentally create an easy to use OO-style library. And then there are the monads....
  - steveklabnik 12y ago
    Monads are pretty simple if you aren't pre-emptively primed with "monads are really hard." I remember the day I sat down, worked through some examples, and grokked monads. I said, "That's it?" That's not to say that they can't be hard to learn. I just don't think that they're _inherently_ hard to learn, and I think that they're sufficiently different enough from 'more traditional' CS concepts that said other concepts can hamper your ability to learn them. I suggest http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/baastad.pdf http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/ba... if you're still trying to figure them out. Fun story: one time I had to suddenly explain monads to an English professor, because she overheard me say the word and said, "wait, Leibnitz?"

It's an experiment that I'll never run. CS exam requirements are geared towards OO languages. Students have to analyse and write pseudocode using traditional programming constructs.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

What are CS exam requirements? Are they standardized? I went through the American system, and never had any of my tests biased to OOP (except of course, a Smalltalk chapter in one PL zoo class). Object thinking is easier to wrap one's head around than mathematical formal thinking, but that's just because the former uses the brain's innate linguistic hardware (we learn to talk without much effort) while the latter requires training and practice.

gamegoblin 12y ago
Perhaps the commenter is referring to the AP computer science class, which I think is pretty OO based? In my experience at least.
MarcScott 12y ago
I teach in the UK. Here's the spec for one of our GCSE courses. http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/ict-and-computer-science/gcse/computer-science-4512 http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/ict-and-computer-science/gcse...
ucarion 12y ago
The current AP standards focus a lot on OOP. Here's the latest course description: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-computer-science-a-course-description-2014.pdf http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-comp...

pjmlp 12y ago

In which countries? Just had a look at the curriculum of the Portuguese university I graduated from, a couple of decades ago and they still teach OOP, FP, LP across multiple languages.

mpweiher 12y ago

At the TU-Berlin, our intro courses were held in FP languages, and we were indoctrinated as to the incomparable superiority of the approach...and could see for ourselves how the reality diverged from the hype. That was a good 20 years ago, but I just ran into a current student who told me that's still the case, and they still hate it as much as we did.

59nadir 12y ago
Seems like your university is doing it wrong. While I do believe that the principles used in FP languages are vastly superior I don't think this is really a matter of debate. The advantages are obvious and if you didn't realize it you probably weren't taught well enough. On topic: I sometimes wonder if the wins from FP languages are lost on the people not already scarred by the pitfalls of imperative programming. I wonder the same about someone starting with Python instead of something more wordy and cumbersome. I don't think you really can appreciate the ease of use if you haven't already written tons of boilerplate or type information because the compiler is stupid. At the same time you don't know the price of the ease you're getting, so there is a warped perspective on both the ease of programming and the performance of languages. Haskell, I think, exists in a sort of middle ground where it's actually really fast but extremely expressive. Maybe someone uninitiated in programming won't have as many problems formulating functional solutions to problems in Haskell too.
- mpweiher 12y ago
  That's exactly the kind of hair-raising and mindless (in the truest sense of the word) nonsense we were presented with: "the superiority of FP is not a matter for debate". The reality was that the tools were slower and buggier than others, the programs different (and slower) but no simpler and the bugs different but stilly just as buggy. When presented so mindlessly and categorically, any claims of superiority instantly lose credibility. When reality is taken into account, even more so.
  - 59nadir 12y ago
    The principles used in FP are actual principles you could employ in imperative languages... and people do, because they are obviously good. It's a matter of there actually being principles instead of the alternative; nothing. This aside, you seem to be talking about the languages themselves, so let's go ahead: > the tools were slower Which tools are these? I don't see this as a systematic failure of FP languages. Which language were you presented with? Did they explain what you're trading your speed of execution for? I'm asking these questions because it doesn't really seem like you got it and this supposedly being 20 years later it seems like you're purposefully not getting it. In these discussions I find that a lot of people believe FP proponents to be very unpragmatic, but I find that in most cases, such as this one, there is little to no concession made on the "other side". Most FP languages are not suitable for performance sensitive tasks and most people will admit this. For most other tasks, though, they're just going to allow you to work faster and get to where you're going with less hassle. I would like to point out that I'm not saying FP languages are just better overall or that an FP language is always the best choice, but I am saying that the principles they employ and teach undeniably are the best. The alternative isn't as much a principle as it is a lack of principle. Flipping individual switches and modifying memory is just not caring.

fractallyte 12y ago

Here's a relevant comment I made just yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7956162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7956162 In short, Scheme (Racket) is regarded as a superior beginner's language because of its simplicity, together with the ability to explore various paradigms (including OO). Beginners in Scheme subsequently did better with Java than those who started solely with Java. I think there's a deep lesson in that...

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
But scheme/racket is really not that far off from java compared to Haskell. I've never had a hard time working with it, even though I've never learned it formally (ok, two weeks of LISP a long time ago). Racket never felt weird, and many of its API are OO in everything but name, it's like C# with the same amount of FP abstractions (list comprehensions), and maybe some macros and continuations if you want to do something advanced. But Haskell really is functional programming, there is no way to accidentally create an easy to use OO-style library. And then there are the monads....
- steveklabnik 12y ago
  Monads are pretty simple if you aren't pre-emptively primed with "monads are really hard." I remember the day I sat down, worked through some examples, and grokked monads. I said, "That's it?" That's not to say that they can't be hard to learn. I just don't think that they're _inherently_ hard to learn, and I think that they're sufficiently different enough from 'more traditional' CS concepts that said other concepts can hamper your ability to learn them. I suggest http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/baastad.pdf http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/ba... if you're still trying to figure them out. Fun story: one time I had to suddenly explain monads to an English professor, because she overheard me say the word and said, "wait, Leibnitz?"