Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[CONROY WILLIAM F]

In article <1993Sep08.003727.36807@source.asset.com> 
tannend@source.asset.com (David Tannen) writes:

   Since this thread won't go away, I thought I would throw
   out some information from a recent Dr. Dobbs Journal (DDJ#203).

   ------------------------------------------------------------------

   Wirth:  "He refrained from criticizing C, however, until the 
   closing panel, where he said that 'hacking is in' and claimed,
   that 'most programmers enjoy working by trial and error.'  
   Looking at Ritchie, who was sitting next to him, Wirth continued:
   'The most important promoter of this trend:  C.'  He said that
   languages such as C are useful for bootstrapping software onto
   a new machine, but their use should be only 'temporary'."

   "Ritchie, ..., noted that Wirth's points were 'well-taken' and
   acknowledged that 'it is possible to use C in a better way than
   people do.'"

   "In his earlier talk on C, Richie actually said good things about
   Pascal, even admitting that Pascal is 'elegant'."

   "What should students learn as a first programming language?  
   Many colleges are beginning to teach C as a first language.  Ritchie
   didn't endorse this trend.  Any approach tat tends to produce 
   dependence on a particular language is bad, he said, suggesting that
   Scheme might be a good choice.  ... Wirth asked 'Are you teaching
   a skill or [providing] general education?'  In the former case,
   he recommended Ada; in the latter, he advised using 'a simpler
   language' - but not C.  'I view the landslide of C use in education
   as rather a calamity,' he said."

I hate to offend the masters, but I have to wonder what world they are
living in. Ada? Who uses Ada? The question of which language is better
for programming in is not really as important as which language is
more commonly used. No college grad is going to get a job programming
in Ada (or at least very few are). But C is everywhere. Furthermore,
who has access to an Ada compiler? You can get free C compilers (or
damn cheap ones) for any machine. So which is going to be more useful
to a college student? Which is going to be more useful to someone
looking for a job? Obviously C!

--


   Edward Hartnett	             ejh@twod.gsfc.nasa.gov
                                        (301) 286-2396

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[Robert Kitzberger]

> The question of which language is better for programming in is not
> really as important as which language is more commonly used.

Given this premise, all argument seems moot.  

	.Bob.

--
Bob Kitzberger                          Internet:   rlk@rational.com
Rational, Grass Valley, CA              CompuServe: 70743,1550
"A man who allows himself to be convinced by an argument is a thoroughly
unreasonable person." -- Oscar Wilde

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[Tim Barrios]

In article <9309081805.AA27680@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> JD3GTRCW.TRANSCOM@transcom.saf
b.af.mil (CONROY WILLIAM F) writes:
>
>In article <1993Sep08.003727.36807@source.asset.com> 
>tannend@source.asset.com (David Tannen) writes:
>
>   Since this thread won't go away, I thought I would throw
>   out some information from a recent Dr. Dobbs Journal (DDJ#203).
>   [ good article text removed ]
>
>I hate to offend the masters, but I have to wonder what world they are
>living in. Ada? Who uses Ada? The question of which language is better
>for programming in is not really as important as which language is
>more commonly used. No college grad is going to get a job programming
>in Ada (or at least very few are). But C is everywhere.

Employers hiring people based on language experience alone (or any other
N-letter words on a resume) aren't worth working for.  It comes down
to, are they hiring programmers or software engineers.  If they want
people who engineer software, all they should care about is that they
can abstract ideas into a logical order that can be implemented in
some programming language.  As most people know, once you've used
a few languages, learning a new one isn't a real big deal; learning
a new development paradigm is a lot harder (and more important).

The first language(s) people learn do tend to influence their
future so I guess it would be important to learn one that is better
at abstracting ideas (Pascal, Ada, C++, etc.).  Pascal is
excellent at teaching fundamentals of types which later can be
expanded upon to learn OO-stuff.

> Furthermore,
>who has access to an Ada compiler? You can get free C compilers (or
>damn cheap ones) for any machine. So which is going to be more useful
>to a college student? Which is going to be more useful to someone
>looking for a job? Obviously C!

You get what you pay for?  (-:

I guess teaching C is like teaching assembly language.  It lets
the students see how bad things could be if we didn't have higher
level languages.
-- 
Tim Barrios, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ
Internet: barriost@agcs.com
UUCP: ...!{ihlps.att.com | att | ncar!noao!enuucp}!gtephx!barriost
voice: (602) 582-7101

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.]

In article <9309081805.AA27680@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> 
JD3GTRCW.TRANSCOM@transcom.safb.af.mil (CONROY WILLIAM F) writes:

>   In article <1993Sep08.003727.36807@source.asset.com> 
>   tannend@source.asset.com (David Tannen) writes:
>
>      Since this thread won't go away, I thought I would throw
>      out some information from a recent Dr. Dobbs Journal (DDJ#203).
>
>      ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      Wirth:  "He refrained from criticizing C, however, until the 
>      closing panel, where he said that 'hacking is in' and claimed,
>      that 'most programmers enjoy working by trial and error.'  
>      Looking at Ritchie, who was sitting next to him, Wirth continued:
>      'The most important promoter of this trend:  C.'  He said that
>      languages such as C are useful for bootstrapping software onto
>      a new machine, but their use should be only 'temporary'."
>
>      "Ritchie, ..., noted that Wirth's points were 'well-taken' and
>      acknowledged that 'it is possible to use C in a better way than
>      people do.'"
>
>      "In his earlier talk on C, Richie actually said good things about
>      Pascal, even admitting that Pascal is 'elegant'."
>
>      "What should students learn as a first programming language?  
>      Many colleges are beginning to teach C as a first language.  Ritchie
>      didn't endorse this trend.  Any approach tat tends to produce 
>      dependence on a particular language is bad, he said, suggesting that
>      Scheme might be a good choice.  ... Wirth asked 'Are you teaching
>      a skill or [providing] general education?'  In the former case,
>      he recommended Ada; in the latter, he advised using 'a simpler
>      language' - but not C.  'I view the landslide of C use in education
>      as rather a calamity,' he said."
>
>   I hate to offend the masters, but I have to wonder what world they are
>   living in. Ada? Who uses Ada? The question of which language is better
>   for programming in is not really as important as which language is
>   more commonly used. No college grad is going to get a job programming
>   in Ada (or at least very few are). But C is everywhere. Furthermore,
>   who has access to an Ada compiler? You can get free C compilers (or
>   damn cheap ones) for any machine. So which is going to be more useful
>   to a college student? Which is going to be more useful to someone
>   looking for a job? Obviously C!

Uh, you're missing the point.  The quotes you included aren't about
"which language is better for programming in", they're about "which
language is best as a *first* language".  And the one they're most
likely to be using in the real world is not necessarily the one they
should be learning first.  Beginning programmers don't even grasp
basic programming comments that have become second nature to us
veterans, and I think C would be just too scary for people who know
virtually nothing about programming.  (Perhaps Mike Feldman or someone
else with teaching experience can confirm or deny this.)

Pascal was designed as a teaching language, which I think makes it a
good choice as a first language.  Ada looks a lot like Pascal, so it
should be about as good.  Also, I believe both languages tend to
enforce good programming practices more than C does, which is a
definite plus for someone who's just learning.

                                -- Adam

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[Michael Feldman]

Please take discussion of this to comp.edu.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"We just changed our CONFIG.SYS, then pressed CTRL-ALT-DEL. It was easy."
-- Alexandre Giglavyi, director Lyceum of Information Technologies, Moscow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsh!cbnewse!cbnewsd!cbnewsc!cbfsb!cbnews!cbnewst!]

>From article <1993Sep10.005836.27727@seas.gwu.edu>, by mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (
Michael Feldman):
> Please take discussion of this to comp.edu.
> 
> Mike Feldman
	{Mike's .sig deleted}

Why?  The pedagogical componenent of this debate is probably more appropriate
there, but I see a larger issue.  That being: Which development paradigm is
more universially appropriate?  We have the Ada/Pascal paradigm or the C
paradigm.  I think it would be productive to characterize both paradigms
and develop the application universe for each.  I believe that discussion
belongs in this group as we seem to return to it frequently.

	It comes disguised as a language war "C/C++ vs. Ada because...",
or as a "C has <semantic_construct> while Ada doesn't..." and several other
forms.  I don't recall seeing any discussions of the form:

	Here is a specification of system requirements.  Design, implement, 
	and maintain a solution for this specification using C++, C, Ada, 
	and Pascal.  Compare/contrast the implementation and the maintenance.

Perhaps such a discussion cannot occur here.  Nonetheless, the exercise 
would, in my view, be useful for all; Ada proponents and detractors alike.

Note:
	The two paradigms are not language specific, but rather are 
	tied to the design philosophies underlying the languages.
	Understanding the paradigms requires appreciating those
	philosophies.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you work for someone else.
			
			-- Anonymous

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[Michael Feldman]

In article <CD41oM.1Ln@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>
>Uh, you're missing the point.  The quotes you included aren't about
>"which language is better for programming in", they're about "which
>language is best as a *first* language".  And the one they're most
>likely to be using in the real world is not necessarily the one they
>should be learning first.  Beginning programmers don't even grasp
>basic programming comments that have become second nature to us
>veterans, and I think C would be just too scary for people who know
>virtually nothing about programming.  (Perhaps Mike Feldman or someone
>else with teaching experience can confirm or deny this.)
>
Thanks for the plug and the confidence. One of my favorite maxims is
"C should be everyone's second language and nobody's first language."
If you have access to the SIGCSE quarterly bulletin, have a look in
the Sept. 1991 issue, in which a Prof. Mody of Poona, India has a few
things to say about C as a first language. The best place to discuss
the whole issue of comparing teaching languages is on comp.edu. 

I'm responding here only to say that _nobody_ I'm aware of, who has given
Ada an honest recent try as a teaching language, seems to dislike it.
And many of us like it very much for that purpose. The argument for
C as a teaching language is made mainly on the basis of C's widespread
use in industry, not on its real merits. 

As in most colleges and universities, this is an ongoing debate; it has
always been there and always will be there. Decisions like this are
often made by committee vote. My department's committee votes now and
then. I'll let you know the outcome when and if anything happens...

>Pascal was designed as a teaching language, which I think makes it a
>good choice as a first language.  Ada looks a lot like Pascal, so it
>should be about as good.  Also, I believe both languages tend to
>enforce good programming practices more than C does, which is a
>definite plus for someone who's just learning.

Exactly. To a pretty good approximation, useful for speaking with
Pascal teachers who know no Ada, we can say that Ada has the
language goodies of Turbo Pascal, but it's not proprietary and it's
easy to write portable code in. (Take it from this book author:
portability is REALLY handy :-))

Cheers -

Mike Feldman

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[Michael Feldman]

In article <CD5B9z.1x8@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> willett@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (david.c.
willett) writes:
>From article <1993Sep10.005836.27727@seas.gwu.edu>, by mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (
Michael Feldman):
>> Please take discussion of this to comp.edu.
>> 
>> Mike Feldman
>	{Mike's .sig deleted}
>
>Why?  The pedagogical componenent of this debate is probably more appropriate
>there, but I see a larger issue.  That being: Which development paradigm is
>more universially appropriate?  We have the Ada/Pascal paradigm or the C
>paradigm.  I think it would be productive to characterize both paradigms
>and develop the application universe for each.  I believe that discussion
>belongs in this group as we seem to return to it frequently.
>
[deleted]
>
>Perhaps such a discussion cannot occur here.  Nonetheless, the exercise 
>would, in my view, be useful for all; Ada proponents and detractors alike.
>
I recommended that comparisons of teaching languages take place on
comp.edu mostly because the readership there is broader-based than
here on an Ada-specific group, and we are more likely to get interesting
responses from people who don't read c.l.a., including a broader base
of college teachers.

In that forum, we may have an opportunity to debunk some of the outdated
myths about Ada, and also to learn what makes others tick. 

I wasn't implying that a discussion of teaching languages shouldn't
happen, or can't happen, here, but the header was Pascal vs. C as an
intro language, and I perceived no relevance to Ada in it.

As a 10-year teacher of Ada in universities and industry, I am arrogant
enough to be willing to go on at unbearable length on this subject.
I'm not trying to moderate this group out of certain topics; I just
think we could all learn something by reading the more generic group.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"We just changed our CONFIG.SYS, then pressed CTRL-ALT-DEL. It was easy."
-- Alexandre Giglavyi, director Lyceum of Information Technologies, Moscow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[Robert Dewar]

Edward Hartnett's comments regarding teaching C -- his point is basicaly
that since C is widespread, that must be the appropriate first language
is a nice example of the most disastrous kind of thinking when it comes
to figuring out what to teach at this or any other level.

Despite our frequent language wars on this newsgroup, we should never forget
that language is very much a secondary issue. I would far rather see C
written by someone competent than Ada written by someone incompetent. Now
what is the competency about here? Certainly not about any particular
language.

So how do we teach this competency? This is a fundamental question, and we
spend a lot of time arguing about the right answer, but we know for sure
that the wrong answer is to focus on a particular language and concentrate
on teaching coding skills in that particular language.

Language is nothing more than a vehicle for teaching at this level. The only
conceivable argument for Ada or C or any other language is that it helps in
the fundamental goal of learning what programming, software engineering if
you like [I see little value in considering these terms as significantly
distinct], is all about.

In practice, the worst thing about C is the trial-and-error hacking culture
that comes with it. It is hard (but not impossible) to teabeginning level witho
ut getting sucked into the
trap of this culture..

The best thing about Ada is the culture that comes with it, which tends to
be at the opposite extreme from this trial-and-error approach.

Now language does not dictate the associated culture, but it is also false
to assume that it has nothing to do with it. In practice the structure
and design of the Ada language are better oriented to teaching abstraction.

For example,  it's hard but not impossible, to teach about data abstraction
and data hiding in C. Ada on the other hand
makes such teaching much more natural.

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[Michael Feldman]

In article <26v3ak$nfh@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wr
ites:
>Edward Hartnett's comments regarding teaching C -- his point is basicaly
>that since C is widespread, that must be the appropriate first language
>is a nice example of the most disastrous kind of thinking when it comes
>to figuring out what to teach at this or any other level.

Amen!
>
>Despite our frequent language wars on this newsgroup, we should never forget
>that language is very much a secondary issue. I would far rather see C
>written by someone competent than Ada written by someone incompetent. Now
>what is the competency about here? Certainly not about any particular
>language.
>
Correct.

>So how do we teach this competency? This is a fundamental question, and we
>spend a lot of time arguing about the right answer, but we know for sure
>that the wrong answer is to focus on a particular language and concentrate
>on teaching coding skills in that particular language.
>
Couldn't agree more.

>Language is nothing more than a vehicle for teaching at this level. The only
>conceivable argument for Ada or C or any other language is that it helps in
>the fundamental goal of learning what programming, software engineering if
>you like [I see little value in considering these terms as significantly
>distinct], is all about.
>
>In practice, the worst thing about C is the trial-and-error hacking culture
>that comes with it. It is hard (but not impossible) to teabeginning level 
>without getting sucked into the
>trap of this culture..

Also, the language helps to reinforce the culture.
  x = 0;
  while (X < 10);
  {
    /* do something with x here */
    x++
  }
is my favorite example, of which there are many.
>
>The best thing about Ada is the culture that comes with it, which tends to
>be at the opposite extreme from this trial-and-error approach.

Very true. I have taught lots of Ada and lots of C, and observe that once
the students get the hang of what it takes to get an Ada program to
_compile_, they are amazed that - more often than not - the program not
only runs without crashing but gives a reasonable answer. If the answer does
not look reasonable, typically the reason is their flawed translation of
their design into a coded algorithm, NOT a language matter.

We debate the "gotchas" of Ada in this group, and that's appropriate.
Where else can we thrash out the "language-lawyer-ly" stuff?

But one of the things that's _right_ about Ada is that if it's taught with
the proper respect for good practices, there are fewer gotchas. This
may or may not be true on every real project; but ten years of teaching
Ada (and C) has taught me that it darned well _is_ true for students.
One can write really bad code in Ada, but it's pretty hard.

We have debated here ad nauseam the question of whether one should prefer
to debug at compile time or at run time. Ada has a clear preference for
the former; C to the latter. Where I stand should come as no surprise,
but I'd rather debate it privately than start a thread here.
>
>Now language does not dictate the associated culture, but it is also false
>to assume that it has nothing to do with it. In practice the structure
>and design of the Ada language are better oriented to teaching abstraction.
>
>For example,  it's hard but not impossible, to teach about data abstraction
>and data hiding in C. Ada on the other hand
>makes such teaching much more natural.
>
Which leaves us with C++, of course. C++ would make a decent teaching language
if we could teach the ++ part without the C part :-)

Please, folks - don't knock it till you've tried it. When you've stared
out at as many freshmen and sophomores as I have (and nearly as many
industry programmers, by the way), you will have learned a few things
about teaching that can't just be theorized on the net.

Cheers -

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"We just changed our CONFIG.SYS, then pressed CTRL-ALT-DEL. It was easy."
-- Alexandre Giglavyi, director Lyceum of Information Technologies, Moscow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[david.c.willett]

>From article <1993Sep11.034948.27142@seas.gwu.edu>, by mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (
Michael Feldman):
> In article <CD5B9z.1x8@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> willett@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (david.
c.willett) writes:
>>From article <1993Sep10.005836.27727@seas.gwu.edu>, by mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu 
(Michael Feldman):
>>> Please take discussion of this to comp.edu.
>>> 
>>> Mike Feldman
>>	{Mike's .sig deleted}
>>
	[deleted]
> 
> I wasn't implying that a discussion of teaching languages shouldn't
> happen, or can't happen, here, but the header was Pascal vs. C as an
> intro language, and I perceived no relevance to Ada in it.
> 
> As a 10-year teacher of Ada in universities and industry, I am arrogant
> enough to be willing to go on at unbearable length on this subject.
> I'm not trying to moderate this group out of certain topics; I just
> think we could all learn something by reading the more generic group.
> 
> Mike Feldman

Point taken, Mike.  I was trying to divert the discussion into a comparison
of software development paradigms as reflected in language selection.  That
topic has relevence to teaching languages because of one's preference for
the development paradigm most synergistic with one's first computer language.

Perhaps this should really be a discussion of how to separate languages from
development paradigms?  Although the distinction is clear to me, for some
reason, I find that many people can't separate the two.  Ada, in my view,
provides the first tool that most anyone can use to make that distinction.

Does this discussion best fit here, in comp.edu, or in comp.software-eng.?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you work for someone else.
			
			-- Anonymous

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[david.c.willett]

>From article <26v3ak$nfh@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>, by dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert De
war):
> Edward Hartnett's comments regarding teaching C -- his point is basicaly
> that since C is widespread, that must be the appropriate first language
> is a nice example of the most disastrous kind of thinking when it comes
> to figuring out what to teach at this or any other level.
> 
> Despite our frequent language wars on this newsgroup, we should never forget
> that language is very much a secondary issue. I would far rather see C
> written by someone competent than Ada written by someone incompetent. Now
> what is the competency about here? Certainly not about any particular
> language.
> 
> So how do we teach this competency? This is a fundamental question, and we
> spend a lot of time arguing about the right answer, but we know for sure
> that the wrong answer is to focus on a particular language and concentrate
> on teaching coding skills in that particular language.
> 
> Language is nothing more than a vehicle for teaching at this level. The only
> conceivable argument for Ada or C or any other language is that it helps in
> the fundamental goal of learning what programming, software engineering if
> you like [I see little value in considering these terms as significantly
> distinct], is all about.
> 
> In practice, the worst thing about C is the trial-and-error hacking culture
> that comes with it. It is hard (but not impossible) to teabeginning level wit
hout getting sucked into the
> trap of this culture..
> 
> The best thing about Ada is the culture that comes with it, which tends to
> be at the opposite extreme from this trial-and-error approach.
> 
> Now language does not dictate the associated culture, but it is also false
> to assume that it has nothing to do with it. In practice the structure
> and design of the Ada language are better oriented to teaching abstraction.
> 
> For example,  it's hard but not impossible, to teach about data abstraction
> and data hiding in C. Ada on the other hand
> makes such teaching much more natural.
>

Not much to add here, except to point out that what Robert calls _the culture
that goes with it_ I'm calling a *development paradigm*.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you work for someone else.
			
			-- Anonymous

Re: Pascal or C as a first lang

[Tom Quiggle]

In article <rlk.747615902@bonnie> rlk@bonnie.Rational.COM (Robert Kitzberger) w
rites:
>> The question of which language is better for programming in is not
>> really as important as which language is more commonly used.
>
>Given this premise, all argument seems moot.  
>
>	.Bob.

Actually, given this premise the logical conclusion is that COBOL should
be the universal first language (which, after all, is the subject of this
thread).  

Does anyone know where I can get a COBOL compiler for the Comodore 64
to replace LOGO in the computer lab at my son's elementary school?

:-) :-) :-) :-)          -- for the humor impaired

Tom Quiggle
--
Tom Quiggle                     tom@visicom.com        quigglet@ajpo.sei.cmu.ed
u
VisiCom Laboratories Inc.
San Diego, CA 92121

Voice: (619) 457-2111 ex 231                               Fax:   (619) 457-088
8