Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: pascal as an intro language
Message-ID: <5125@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 18:58:31 EST
Article-I.D.: kestrel.5125
Posted: Mon Feb 24 18:58:31 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 07:29:09 EST
References: <111@polyob.UUCP> <156@leopard.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 30

In article <156@leopard.UUCP>, perry@leopard.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) writes:
> I believe Pascal is a good first programming language. However, it has
> been my experience that undergraduates trained only in Pascal have had
> their imagination destroyed. 

Poor Wirth! And this was exactly contrary to his intent. If he couldn't
succeed, would anyone else dare try?

> I would suggest that Pascal be used as an introductory procedural lan-
> guage to be replaced in the second year by C. [Then C++].

Reality will unfortunately intervene. Languages are a tool, not an end.
Of course, it's always helpful to be multilingual. But not compulsory.

> Overall, I'd like to less emphasis  on Pascal. It is a dry, uninspired
> language suitable for use in introductory courses or very highly main-
> tainable but non-the-less uninteresting applications.

How things change! I thought Wirth's Algorithms book was a landmark.
But then, we were comparing it with MIX.

> I'd like  to  see  non-procedural  languages introduced. 

Some have suggested LISP as an appropriate start, like Touretsky.
Nowadays, though LISP is hardly non-procedural, unless you stick
to pure LISP. And it doesn't have typing or other protection
facilities. You say, which LISP am I talking about? Enough said.

Does anyone have any candidates?

Peter Ladkin