🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mgreenaw.814490475@lancelot.st.nepean.uws.edu.au>,
Mark Greenaway <mgreenaw@lionel.st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Practicality is not the measure by which you should judge a teaching 
>language. However, I agree that Pascal's design is somewhat antiquated. 
>This does not diminish it's value as a teaching language, at least 
>initially. 
>
   [text omitted]
>
>The fundamentals of Computer Science bear more importance than 
>comparitively minor issues like which language we use for the time being. 
>Languages come and go, as do Operating Systems. The Church-Turing thesis, 
>on the other hand, is liable to be with us for a long time yet.
>
>Mark

	In teaching, there must be a continual debate as to the mix
	of education and training.  Education encompasses those first
	principles that enable people to learn new programming languages
	five or six years from now when C++ becomes obsolete.  However,
	students hate this aspect of the college experience and point
	to the fact that employers are only interested in things like
	programming languages and OS experience.  That's training.

	I see the primary reason for getting a college degree is to
	get a job.  The training aspect will help a student get a
	job.  Education will allow the student to adapt to keep
	that job.

	What's wrong with using as a first language any of the compiler 
	languages that students perceive to be a marketable commodity?
	Principles of good design and style can be taught using
	any of the currently 'hot' compiler languages.

	R. J. Wolfe
	wolfe@cs.depaul.edu