Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Texts on fundamentals of programmin
Message-ID: <4200007@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 89 18:35:00 GMT
References: <354@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:cbnewsc.ATT.COM:354:m.cs.uiuc.edu:4200007:000:1027
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Apr  2 13:35:00 1989


> The approach to problem sets in the class at MIT was great
> - they would give you lots of code and you would then have to figure
> it out and then modify or extend it. Much more of a real-world
> approach than writing everything from scratch. 
>
>				Peter Desnoyers


I have to disagree furiously.  I recently reviewed my course notes and
problem sets from 6.001, when it was taught in CLISP ('81).  More than
HALF THE PROBLEMS ARE AI TOY PROBLEMS!!!!  I also took intro to C.S.
for majors at Illinois, and the problems were much more realistic.

Face it, you're not going to be writing lisp interpreters,
reprogramming eliza's, simulating infinite lists of primes, or
reimplementing MacSyma out in the real world.  A LARGE fraction of our
problems in 6.001 could not easily be translated into other languages.
They were very heavily dependent on the intricacies of LISP!

The course is unrealistic.  It is fun, and it teaches recursion
beautifully, and it neglects documentation totally, and the problems
are unrealistic.