Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Which language to teach first?
Message-ID: <6338@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 89 18:21:33 GMT
References: <6907@cognos.UUCP>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 37

From article <6907@cognos.UUCP>, by rossj@cognos.UUCP (Ross Judson):
> Bill, this is precisely the kind of reasoning that would turn our
> universities into C shops.  Let's be realistic here.  When students graduate
> and hit the real world, they're going to be working in C, C++, FORTRAN, or
> COBOL.  That covers 99.9% of cases.  Why then do we not teach nothing but
> the above in university?

    The above figures are incorrect; it was estimated a year ago that
    the United States Ada industry has an activity of $1.25 billion,
    supports 13,000 jobs, and comprises 3% of the U.S. software market.
    Considering Ada's accelerating growth, it's probably around 5 to 10%
    right now.  

    Now students are not going to hit the real world for four years, so
    the idea is to a) estimate what they will actually be confronted with
    four years from now, b) see to it that their expectations correspond to
    the estimate derived in a), and c) train them well enough to give them 
    a look into the future.  My view is that the introductory course should
    concentrate on b), thus giving them realistic expectations; IMHO, this
    calls for Ada training in anticipation of 1993's conditions.  Later work
    can then survey some of the older languages and the newer research ideas. 

> Incidentally, a truly advanced programming system will encompass both power
> _and_ ease of use.  I do not believe they are mutually exclusive; they are
> merely difficult to achieve, and difficult to define.

    Precisely.

> I say that we spoon feed.  Give them a taste of the future.  If the rest of
> the world is too archaic or immutable to develop the tools of the future,
> perhaps that will persuade them to perform the work themselves.

    I just think the "taste of the future" should be reserved for AFTER 
    their expectations of the immediate present have been calibrated.


    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu