3 ms·

Our unit is a first year unit, and runs for twelve weeks. This means that we have ten weeks to take people who may have never programmed by typing text into an

Our unit is a first year unit, and runs for twelve weeks. This means that we have ten weeks to take people who may have never programmed by typing text into an editor and teach them enough CS and programming that they can implement their own hashmap in Python and reason about its big O performance in one week, start programming in MIPS assembly the next week, and implement function calls in assembly and reason about stack frames the following week. Anything we can do to make their learning curve less steep is good. You say that your Data Structures course was graduate level, and that you were already familiar with C from a lower course. These are two big differences between you and our first year intake. Now, like Spolsky, I too have a bit of the Yorkshireman in me, and I wish our students would be forced to work with simple text editors and the command line, instead of having the IDE to do some of their lifting for them. I wish they were taught more maths too. And spelling, now that we are at it. And C, why not. But when you say that in your course you "just had to focus on our algorithm and nothing else", it echoes exactly our intention when we picked Python for this unit. We wanted the language that would allow our students to focus on the fundamentals, and spend the least time and effort on the incidentals. We were already running the unit in Java, which was an inherited decision. I think Python was the best of our available choices.

Goladus 12y ago
I've commented before in a variety of places that if I were to design a first-year curriculum that would have suited me best, it would start with python in much the way that is discussed in this thread, focusing on the concepts and algorithms and general concepts of coding. But the next course would be a hardcore introduction to C, embracing the language peculiarities instead of shunning them and trying to stick to concepts. I think at least once in an undergrad's career, preferably sooner than later, they should go through the process of learning the nuts and bolts of C. I've probably been doing my own thing for too long to know for sure whether C is still the best choice, all I know is that NOT having the sort of class I describe, early in my college career, made things far more difficult later on.
- aninhumer 12y ago
  Indeed, I'm surprised by how often people make arguments that seem to assume the only options are C from the start, or no C at all. When you're teaching systems programming, all the things that have to be done by hand in C are precisely the things the students are supposed to be learning. But for almost everything else, they're pointless details that obscure what you're actually trying to teach. Teaching multiple languages also has the advantage of showing people how they're mostly not that different.
  - candeira 12y ago
    > When you're teaching systems programming, all the things that have to be done by hand in C are precisely the things the students are supposed to be learning. But for almost everything else, they're pointless details that obscure what you're actually trying to teach. Exactly.
- aganders3 12y ago
  I had a course kind of like this. My intro CS class was taught in Java, and the following summer or semester I took a 1-credit course called something like "C (and C++) for Java Programmers".
sand500 12y ago
Why does your data structure course cover assembly? I am just curious because in my school, they teach assembly bottom up, starting from digital logic and transistors and eventually get to C.
- candeira 12y ago
  I think it's a combination of three factors: 1. Historically, before it was taught in Java, this unit was taught in C, and it would have been a natural transition from building data structures via explicit pointer manipulation to explaining stack frames as a specialised data structure for handling scoped variables in function calls. 2. Despite the move to a higher level language (and, from assembly and machine code, even C is a higher level language), it's good for the students to get some exposure to the machine model, and what is going on deeper in the stack of turtles. 3. The lecturer who runs the course also has a bit of the Yorkshirewoman in her. So students learn a tiny bit of MIPS like they should eat their spinach and shower with cold water, uphill both ways, in the snow, or something.

Goladus 12y ago

I've commented before in a variety of places that if I were to design a first-year curriculum that would have suited me best, it would start with python in much the way that is discussed in this thread, focusing on the concepts and algorithms and general concepts of coding. But the next course would be a hardcore introduction to C, embracing the language peculiarities instead of shunning them and trying to stick to concepts. I think at least once in an undergrad's career, preferably sooner than later, they should go through the process of learning the nuts and bolts of C. I've probably been doing my own thing for too long to know for sure whether C is still the best choice, all I know is that NOT having the sort of class I describe, early in my college career, made things far more difficult later on.

aninhumer 12y ago
Indeed, I'm surprised by how often people make arguments that seem to assume the only options are C from the start, or no C at all. When you're teaching systems programming, all the things that have to be done by hand in C are precisely the things the students are supposed to be learning. But for almost everything else, they're pointless details that obscure what you're actually trying to teach. Teaching multiple languages also has the advantage of showing people how they're mostly not that different.
- candeira 12y ago
  > When you're teaching systems programming, all the things that have to be done by hand in C are precisely the things the students are supposed to be learning. But for almost everything else, they're pointless details that obscure what you're actually trying to teach. Exactly.
aganders3 12y ago
I had a course kind of like this. My intro CS class was taught in Java, and the following summer or semester I took a 1-credit course called something like "C (and C++) for Java Programmers".

sand500 12y ago

Why does your data structure course cover assembly? I am just curious because in my school, they teach assembly bottom up, starting from digital logic and transistors and eventually get to C.

candeira 12y ago
I think it's a combination of three factors: 1. Historically, before it was taught in Java, this unit was taught in C, and it would have been a natural transition from building data structures via explicit pointer manipulation to explaining stack frames as a specialised data structure for handling scoped variables in function calls. 2. Despite the move to a higher level language (and, from assembly and machine code, even C is a higher level language), it's good for the students to get some exposure to the machine model, and what is going on deeper in the stack of turtles. 3. The lecturer who runs the course also has a bit of the Yorkshirewoman in her. So students learn a tiny bit of MIPS like they should eat their spinach and shower with cold water, uphill both ways, in the snow, or something.