Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!mit-eddie!nessus From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Object oriented languages Message-ID: <2160@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Sat, 16-Jun-84 04:17:11 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.2160 Posted: Sat Jun 16 04:17:11 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 03:26:33 EDT Distribution: net Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 75 > From: brownell@harvard.UUCP (Dave Brownell) > [MIT attacks Harvard ... a counterattack !!! a left!!! ... a > CDR ???] Well, I dunno if I'd call it an attack. (Maybe a call-by-name argument.) I just think that MIT does a much better job at teaching introductory computer science, and I think it's important to understand why. Also, I had realized that I had not made my point very well and I posted very shortly after posting the article you are talking about a new article that more closely said what I meant. It addressed most of what you are talking about before you even said it. I think it is a pretty good idea in general to read through the whole news group before responding to an individual letter. I will quote from that newer letter here where appropriate. > It may not have come across in Kevin's original letter, but the > course in question came from MIT. As Kevin said, machine > resources were the big bottleneck. I was also a TF for the > course; I know. The reason there was a machine bottleneck was > an implementation of SCHEME that used too much virtual memory. > (A better implementation foundered on political sand and lack of > support.) Me: "Harvard used MIT's course with Scheme and all its neat concepts for a semester, but seems to have reverted back to its old course (which by the way is based on MIT's course from about 10 years ago) due to lack of computer resources and a desire to make the course more practical once again. And this I think is a shame." Actually, the real reason they changed back to the old course is probably because the implementation of Scheme came from Yale. :-) > Ruminations about trade schools versus liberal arts schools > (bring on the flames !!!! :-) are interesting, but frankly, "you > had to be there". Hmmph. I wouldn't call MIT a "trade school". Many people (like me) are here for science, philosophy, math, linguistics, art, etc. -- not engineering. > Doug did not take any Harvard version of the course in question. > Summer school didn't count. I suppose you should tell this to Henry Leitner, the instructor of the course, who told us that we were going to be doing everything the normal semsester class did, and since it was crammed into seven weeks we were going to have to work really hard. It only took 48 hours a day. And I suppose you should also tell this to the all the people I talked to who had taken the normal semster course and told me that we were indeed doing everything they did. And I suppose you should also tell Harvard, who gave me the same credit. > I agree that beautiful concepts can complement engineering, but > this time the concepts lost. Beautiful concepts, as anyone who > has worked in the computer industry can testify, may lose to the > reality of implementation. On many machines now in existence, > object oriented languages are implemented inefficiently; unless > you have money to burn, they aren't a real option for very large > introductory courses. MIT seems to do a good job at it. Of course they have money to burn. But this is an important point. Sometimes in order to provide a good education, you have to spend money. Like providing a large library with millions of books. Or providing enough computer resources to adequately teach object-oriented programming. (Two Vax 750s for several hundred people just doesn't cut it.) -- -Doug Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC "What does 'I' mean"?