Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!bloom-beacon!think!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!labrea!rocky!andy From: andy@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman) Newsgroups: soc.college,comp.edu Subject: Learning and using computer languages Message-ID: <430@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> Date: Sun, 19-Jul-87 00:10:06 EDT Article-I.D.: rocky.430 Posted: Sun Jul 19 00:10:06 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Jul-87 08:36:14 EDT Reply-To: andy@rocky.UUCP (Andy Freeman) Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Department Lines: 26 Xref: mnetor soc.college:769 comp.edu:507 I'm not sure it matters which decent language is used in the first class, as long as it isn't used in the second, and so on. When I was an undergrad (at Stanford, I "can't" get in anywhere else) I used a different language in each of my first 7-10 classes. (Only one of these, a languages course, used more than one language, and I had used most of the languages surveyed before I took it. All of them required substantial programming. I didn't do a lot of APL programming but otherwise the languages I used came from all of the major types at that time; Smalltalk and Prolog didn't exist then, but I've used the latter extensively.) I didn't learn how to program/debug in x, I learned how to program. I can choose the appropriate language to solve a given problem; if I don't know it, I know that I can learn it quickly. I wish that I'd have learned Scheme and Icon earlier. My ideal "teach programming and computer science" program would teach both as first languages and then use languages that fit the problems being solved. The goal of the latter is to teach people why different languages exist. -andy -- Andy Freeman UUCP: ...!decwrl!sushi.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@sushi.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle