Darren New wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> I wouldn't really name a course with such a title, but to me, it seems >> reasonable to emphasize those concepts in a first course on programming > > I don't think so. People understand that. They don't understand how to > give precise instructions to a machine, or what the machine does. > >> -- I doubt spaghetti coding and unnecessarily interdependent >> modules/routines will go away from pure intuition. ;-) > > No, but before you know what "coding" is and what "modules" and > "routines" are, it's kind of silly to teach loose coupling and > parallelism. It just won't work. You'll spend time telling people how > their programs should be running in parallel before you're telling them > how they run at all. It's teaching calculus before algebra, algebra > before arithmetic. >
OK, that's a reasonable point. So now I wonder what is the *right* sequence of subjects to teach? I guess that question also depends on which variations we have on overall degree programs. Do you distinguish between CS and SE (and/or something else)? Regards, ..jim -- KPLUG-LPSG@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
