Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!siegman@sierra From: siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: SEEKING SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING A LANGUAGES COURSE Message-ID: <219@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> Date: 16 Aug 90 20:31:21 GMT References: <90Aug8.173401edt.7886@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <6717.26c20a9a@vax1.tcd.ie> Sender: siegman@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 21 From wittman@athos.rutgers.edu: > >We try to stress structured programing concepts, top down design, >functional modularity, right down to abstract data types. We expose >recursion and iteration as approaches to problem solving. ...... >The reverse approach doesn't work: students who know "BASIC" are at a >serious disadvantage in many ways. ........ One student >had been using BASIC for 25 years and was so hopelessly mired in its >limitations that he was unable to write Pascal programs. . . . . >It's very hard to do Tower of Hanoi or even tree traversals in a >non-recursive language, Hopeless to try to get around people's ancient stereotypes, but modern BASICs (e.g., QuickBASIC) have ALL the standard structured programming concepts, along with global and local variables, recursively callable subprograms, and so on (and no more line numbers). Not saying that BASIC has everything Pascal, etc., have (esp. abstract data types), but one can (and obviously should) write structured, modular and top-down programs in BASIC also; and many people find it a lot easier and more rewarding to do so in BASIC than in Pascal.