The world of text books for undergraduate PL classes changed radically in the 1980s with the introduction of Kamin’s book and Friedman & Wand’s EOPL. One of the final bricks in this wall to fence of “paradigm” teaching is SK’s PLAI. Instead of paradigms, these books emphasized the idea of interpretation and everything that goes with it (type checking, gc, transformations on interpreters (cps, sps), and many more language concepts). The DSL movement of the last 10 years has also bought into this.
This is not to say that the stone-aged “paradigmers” don’t write books anymore or that the people don’t teach this stuff anymore. But no self-respecting research university does. Instead they hire a well-trained PL guy and move away from this nonsense. — Matthias > On Feb 16, 2017, at 6:18 AM, Stephen De Gabrielle <spdegabrie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I've edited both the paradigms and comparison pages to emphasise and add > criticisms citing the paper. > > While I don't consider Wikipedia either a safe or reliable source for > study, it is nevertheless used widely. I would suggest in this context it is > a marketing tool - just take a look at the language which supports all > paradigms. I don't think that simply removing Racket is helpful. > > It would be helpful if there were more sources that supported the criticism > both of classifying languages in this way, and as a teaching methodology. If > you are aware of any please let me know and I will at them. > > Kind regards > > Stephen > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 at 14:30, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > >> On Feb 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Greg Trzeciak <gtrzec...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I have stumbled upon the following wiki page: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_multi-paradigm_programming_languages >> >> Supported paradigms: >> ----------------------- >> Language: Racket >> Number of Paradigms: 6 >> Concurrent: No >> Constraints: No >> Dataflow: No >> Declarative: No >> Distributed: No >> Functional: Yes >> Metaprogramming: Yes >> Generic: No >> Imperative: Yes >> Logic: Yes >> Reflection: Yes >> Object-oriented: Yes >> Pipelines: No >> Visual: No >> Rule-based: No >> Other paradigms: No (not listed paradigms can be mentioned here) >> >> According to the same page eg. Julia supports 17 paradigms. >> >> Not being an expert in Racket I can see the article sells Racket short. How >> really this table should look like in regards to Racket? > > > Racket should be removed from the list. > > > http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/sk-teach-pl-post-linnaean/ > > Programming language ‘‘paradigms’’ are a moribund and tedious legacy of a > bygone age. > Modern language designers pay them no respect, so why do our courses > slavishly adhere > to them? This paper argues that we should abandon this method of teaching > languages, > offers an alternative, reconciles an important split in programming language > education, > and describes a textbook that explores these matters. > > (Shriram’s dissertation on linguistic reuse inspired Racket’s modular system > of languages.) > > If you have time to edit the wikipage, please do so. Thanks — Matthias > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- > Kind regards, > Stephen > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
