Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!littlei!intelisc!omepd!pcm From: pcm@iwarpo3.intel.com (Phil C. Miller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Re: First Languages (yet again) Message-ID: <2781@omepd> Date: 1 Feb 88 17:28:31 GMT References: <4022@ames.arpa> <2400002@otter.HP.COM> <932@its63b.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@omepd Reply-To: pcm@iwarpo3.UUCP (Phil C. Miller) Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro Lines: 32 In article <932@its63b.ed.ac.uk> RDI@uk.ac.ed.ecsvax (Rick Innis, CS4) writes: >Well, at Edinburgh we've been using Pascal for the last few years, but there >is now a movement afoot to use ML as the first teaching language. I know that >this year's first year will be getting introduced to ML quite shortly. This is a really interesting movement you're discussing. I have used ML in the classroom, have even implemented a (subset) compiler. So far, the only context in which I have seen ML is the university environment. This is one of those situations in which a well-intentioned effort should probably be directed a bit more toward the mainstream. Perhaps a language like C++ or Ada (which are languages in widespread use in industry) would be better than a language which is, in effect, an experimental language. I have just changed jobs. In no interview was I asked whether I knew ML; in every interview I was asked if I knew C. >My own experience of learning ML (in second year) had quite an effect on my >programming style. Learning Prolog also affected it - I think in both cases for >the better. Functional languages certainly give a greater appreciation of the >computational process, I think, than procedural languages do. If you want an >understanding of what's happening at that level, something like ML is a very >good first language. Part of the reasoning behind a technical education should be to prepare a student for the working experience. I contend that exposing first-year students to a functional programming language does not fit that role. Phil Miller Opinions expressed are mine, not necessarily my employer's, etc.