Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!quintus!pds
From: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Languages and learning (was: Philosophy of C)
Summary: Lisp is a good first language
Message-ID: <580@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jan 88 22:05:14 GMT
References: <11348@brl-adm.ARPA> <3473@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 29

In article <3473@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704A-Liber) writes:
> Maybe starting with
> Lisp (a language which can be described very simply) and teaching theory is the
> way to go (I think this is MIT's approach); I really don't know.  None of the
> current languages seem very good for an introduction (sorry, Mr. Kernighan and
> Mr. Ritchie :-)).

Syracuse University's introductory programming course for CS majors
uses Lisp (at least it did when I was there).  I found this to be a
good approach.  I think it's pretty important that an introductory
course use an interpreted language, so users don't have to start out by
learning too much extraneous stuff, like running compilers.  And being
able to type in a fragment and execute it is helpful in getting started
quickly.  Once budding programmers have learned to be precise in
expressing themselves, and to think through what a program means, THEN
make them learn about things like syntax, and where semicolons go, etc.

And you shouldn't be sorry to K&R.  C wasn't meant to be a teaching
language, Pascal was.  And I think Pascal IS a better language for
teaching.  (Please, no flames about the UTILITY of Pascal relative to
C, just TEACHABILITY (learnability).)  C is more practical for
real-world programming.  So teach Lisp first, then Pascal, then C. THEN
teach assembly language.  THEN hardware.  The fewer details you make
students master, the better they'll do.  So start with simple concepts,
like functions, and build up to pointer manipulation and such.
-- 
-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
...!sun!quintus!pds