8 ms·

It does stick out... but apparently too far as it blocked out the following qualification "(obviously different sectors age at different rates – web programming

It does stick out... but apparently too far as it blocked out the following qualification "(obviously different sectors age at different rates – web programming has a very fast cycle, embedded systems a very slow one)". C is a systems language, it's been around forever and is not about to be replaced anytime soon, possibly anytime in our lifetimes. It's too good at what it does. And that's why it's taught in a lot of universities. As is Lisp, for the reasons you mentioned. As is SQL. As are several others (though I'd disagree with Java myself because it's really more set up to do things than to teach things and there are too many shortcuts in there - but many others disagree with me on that point :) ). I'm not for getting rid of established languages from courses. C is 37 years old; C++, 30 years; Lisp, 51 years; Objective C, 23 years - these are well-established languages that won't vanish in the four-year span of an undergrad course. Java at only 14 years (and so many releases that stability is a valid question) tends (to my mind at least) to mark the start of the gray area there. Some though, like Perl and C++, are really hard to teach in compared to others and that can outweigh their stability as a factor. Still though, I look at languages like Python and would love to work them into a course. But it is still a risk for the students. Maybe for the final year work though. But teaching a four-year course using Ruby as a primary language, intellectually interesting as that sounds, is an unethical act at the moment. It's a beautiful language, a real joy even to read - but what the students start learning on day one may not be around, or be a useful thing to know for the jobs they'll pay their mortgages with four years down the line. That's the responsibility the university is taking on when it creates a course. The student invests four years of their life - the university must produce a return on that, and conservative thinking is needed for that.

imok20 17y ago
And that's exactly the problem. In liberal arts educations (such as the one I'm receiving) or even at universities such as MIT, Python is the language of choice. It's great fun to teach, very easy to learn, but it's not an industry standard, and many would argue that it's too easy to use.
- alexgartrell 17y ago
  Being the introductory language of choice doesn't make it the language of choice. MIT kids learn the real stuff too.
  - sketerpot 17y ago
    Python is "the real stuff", and I'm always annoyed by the snobbishness that leads some people to dismiss it. Python is an excellent language, with a large user base, and some compilers in the works. Just because C is hardcore and Lisp is amazing and Haskell is mind-exploding doesn't mean that Python isn't a great language.
- brown9-2 17y ago
  Are you really saying that Python is "not useful"?
- imok20 17y ago
  That was a mistake: Python is QUITE useful. But I wouldn't call it an industry standard. Corrected.
  - dagw 17y ago
    Really? Python seems to be showing up everywhere I look. I don't think I've seen any largish company in quite a while that wasn't using python for something somewhere.
    - markdennehy 17y ago
      It's spectacularly useful, and I personally really love using it - but to say it's an industry standard the way C or C++ are is to stretch the point a wee bit too far unfortunately. Still though, we use some languages for teaching (like Pascal or Modula-2) which don't have the kind of industrial usage levels of C or C++, so we might see Python being taken up sooner rather than later. I think there are one or two courses already using it over here on a trial basis.
- 17y ago
steveklabnik 17y ago
On one hand, we have talk of learning fundamentals, but on the other, if we teach with more exotic languages, "they'll never be able to find a job because they didn't learn anything useful." So, which is it? Do schools teach the fundamentals, transferrable to any language, or do they teach what'll be useful in industry?
- markdennehy 17y ago
  The two are orthogonal, at least in some aspects. The fundamentals can - technically - be taught in any language (practically, noone's going to try teaching a course in BrainFuck). But we try to choose a language that gives them, if not industry skills, a platform from which to reach those skills rapidly. For example, teach them C and an OO language of your choice properly - and they can learn C++, ObjectiveC, Java, Python or any of a dozen others very rapidly indeed compared to someone who dove in, learnt Inferno and then graduated into an industry that never heard of it. The thing to remember is this - we teach them the fundamentals for a reason, namely to get jobs in industry. At the back of all this academic teaching is a commercial reality that can't be forgotten. But you have to balance that with a long-term view of the student's entire career. We're trying to give them a degree course, not a Sam's book!
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    It's true. Just color me bitter about how my college neither taught fundamentals nor prepared anyone for industry.
    - markdennehy 17y ago
      That's not bitter, that's justifiable anger steve. There's a duty of care involved on the university's part - if they screwed the pooch, that's a pretty major thing.
      - steveklabnik 17y ago
        This actually lets me responded in a threaded way, rather than your blog, apparently? So my bad, I'll just respond here. Do you feel that your experience or mine is more mainstream? When I read Joel's "The Perils of Java Schools," I felt that it described my school to a tee. I had just assumed that that's how most programs are, given my school's size. Obviously, Ivy-leage schools should be better, but I just kind of assumed that my own experience was average.
undees 17y ago
You're contrasting Ruby as an upstart and Java as an established language, but they're basically the same age. They both had their first public releases in 1995. (Of course, this doesn't invalidate your point about relative popularity.)

imok20 17y ago

And that's exactly the problem. In liberal arts educations (such as the one I'm receiving) or even at universities such as MIT, Python is the language of choice. It's great fun to teach, very easy to learn, but it's not an industry standard, and many would argue that it's too easy to use.

alexgartrell 17y ago
Being the introductory language of choice doesn't make it the language of choice. MIT kids learn the real stuff too.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  Python is "the real stuff", and I'm always annoyed by the snobbishness that leads some people to dismiss it. Python is an excellent language, with a large user base, and some compilers in the works. Just because C is hardcore and Lisp is amazing and Haskell is mind-exploding doesn't mean that Python isn't a great language.
brown9-2 17y ago
Are you really saying that Python is "not useful"?
imok20 17y ago
That was a mistake: Python is QUITE useful. But I wouldn't call it an industry standard. Corrected.
- dagw 17y ago
  Really? Python seems to be showing up everywhere I look. I don't think I've seen any largish company in quite a while that wasn't using python for something somewhere.
  - markdennehy 17y ago
    It's spectacularly useful, and I personally really love using it - but to say it's an industry standard the way C or C++ are is to stretch the point a wee bit too far unfortunately. Still though, we use some languages for teaching (like Pascal or Modula-2) which don't have the kind of industrial usage levels of C or C++, so we might see Python being taken up sooner rather than later. I think there are one or two courses already using it over here on a trial basis.
17y ago

steveklabnik 17y ago

On one hand, we have talk of learning fundamentals, but on the other, if we teach with more exotic languages, "they'll never be able to find a job because they didn't learn anything useful." So, which is it? Do schools teach the fundamentals, transferrable to any language, or do they teach what'll be useful in industry?

markdennehy 17y ago
The two are orthogonal, at least in some aspects. The fundamentals can - technically - be taught in any language (practically, noone's going to try teaching a course in BrainFuck). But we try to choose a language that gives them, if not industry skills, a platform from which to reach those skills rapidly. For example, teach them C and an OO language of your choice properly - and they can learn C++, ObjectiveC, Java, Python or any of a dozen others very rapidly indeed compared to someone who dove in, learnt Inferno and then graduated into an industry that never heard of it. The thing to remember is this - we teach them the fundamentals for a reason, namely to get jobs in industry. At the back of all this academic teaching is a commercial reality that can't be forgotten. But you have to balance that with a long-term view of the student's entire career. We're trying to give them a degree course, not a Sam's book!
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  It's true. Just color me bitter about how my college neither taught fundamentals nor prepared anyone for industry.
  - markdennehy 17y ago
    That's not bitter, that's justifiable anger steve. There's a duty of care involved on the university's part - if they screwed the pooch, that's a pretty major thing.
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      This actually lets me responded in a threaded way, rather than your blog, apparently? So my bad, I'll just respond here. Do you feel that your experience or mine is more mainstream? When I read Joel's "The Perils of Java Schools," I felt that it described my school to a tee. I had just assumed that that's how most programs are, given my school's size. Obviously, Ivy-leage schools should be better, but I just kind of assumed that my own experience was average.

undees 17y ago

You're contrasting Ruby as an upstart and Java as an established language, but they're basically the same age. They both had their first public releases in 1995. (Of course, this doesn't invalidate your point about relative popularity.)