Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!ames!ucla-cs!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!uh2
From: uh2@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.edu
Subject: Re: How to teach computers
Message-ID: <9828UH2@PSUVM>
Date: Sat, 24-Jan-87 16:09:37 EST
Article-I.D.: PSUVM.9828UH2
Posted: Sat Jan 24 16:09:37 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Jan-87 10:43:34 EST
References: <2030@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> 269@rabbit1.UUCP
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath comp.lang.misc:196 comp.edu:63


barber@rabbit1 argues that we should only teach ONE language to beginners
because it is better to be proficient at one thing than to be aware of
many different things (my paraphrase).

I agree that proficiency is a good thing--but what's the best way to
produce proficiency.  Maybe comparing TWO languages will lead to
superior proficiency.  (Hmmm.  There's a research project in that statement.)

For example, I recently had to discard my "modern" principles and teach
FORTRAN.  As a lecture device, when about to introduce a new feature
such as character manipulation or complex numbers or recursion or
double precision, I would have the students "guess" at what the correct
syntax or semantics might be.

Often, there guess would be a very good one, except that they would guess
the Pascal or Simula convention instead of the FORTRAN one.  Then I'd
get to explain that there were multiple choices that a language designer
might make, and thet the FORTARN folks had made sch and such a choice whilethe
XYZ designers had made the opposite choice.

I wrote a short article about this, but Never published it.

I think "Comparative Languages" is a good way to teach beginners
BECAUSE it makes them more proficient in the medium and long run--and
maybe in the short run too.

lee