Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!amdahl!oliveb!felix!chuck
From: chuck@felix.UUCP (Chuck Vertrees)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Microcomputers and Productivity - (nf)
Message-ID: <6298@felix.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Aug-87 12:29:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: felix.6298
Posted: Tue Aug 25 12:29:44 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Aug-87 06:28:00 EDT
References: <5715@felix.UUCP> <18100002@infbs.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: chuck@felix.UUCP (Chuck Vertrees)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 39

In article <18100002@infbs.UUCP> neitzel@infbs.UUCP writes:
>Let me vote in favour of the fast programming environments for CS education.
>
>> Modern language processors may remove the drudgery involved in
>> ensuring correct syntax, but they won't ensure your logic is correct.
>
>Agreed.  But fast environments allow controlled experiments, where the
>problem can be investigated isolated from the rest.  And in fact much
>better understood.  A slow edit-compile cycle was to often the reason,
>that students tackled many problems in parallel, because they felt, an
>extra test program for each problem would be luxury.
>
>15 years ago is 15 years ago, and now is now.  We should continue to
>debate the education of todays students.  The problem of "programming
>without substantial understanding" is a serious one.  And, as pointed
>out by chuck@felix, todays facilities increase the danger of code-
>tinkering.  But can re-introducing the slow environment solve this
>problem?  I doubt it.

I was not advocating that we in fact step back 6 or even 15 years by slowing
down the teaching environment.  What is available today is much superior to the
previous environments.  My point was to highlight the dangers of "programming
without substantial understanding."  I know that as I transitioned from older
slower environments to those with faster turnaround, I fell into the "tinker"
trap myself.  I slowly came to the realization that while I was turning around
a lot of compiles, I was not making significant progress.

I agree that the more you can play with a language, the better you will learn
it.  To a certain extent, this can be encouraged with speedy environments, but
the "programming without substantial understanding" trap still exists.  I think
that one of the fundamental questions should be how to encourage tinkering for
learning's sake while fostering a discipline which encourages you understand
the problem fully.  In some people, these conditions are synergistic, while in
others just the opposite.

Perhaps, more emphasis should be spent on promoting good analysis, design and
programming skills.  The end result should be to produce people who have a
solid foundation in these areas.  A fast programming environment is but a tool
towards this end, albeit a marvelous one.