You'll notice if you read carefully that he says pretty much the same
thing you do; students should learn about high-level languages, but
not at the expense of low-level knowledge and formal methods.
Although he's clearly a fan of Ada, I don't think he came off as a
bigot. Frankly, I'd like to see more of Ada in the schools and
marketplace. It's got an interesting and powerful type system,
provides all sorts of interesting low-level stuff for embedded and
real-time systems, and has some built-in concurrency primitives.
--Levi
On Jan 8, 2008 9:58 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2008/01/0801DewarSchonberg.html
>
> I thought it was interesting for a couple of reasons. First, I remember
> hearing back in the '80s that object-oriented and component programming
> were going to make programming more like designing circuits with IC's. I
> think I remember a CACM with legos on the cover. I guess we're finally
> there, maybe.
>
> Second, all the pitfalls listed for java are all the things about java
> that scripting language bigots claim Java doesn't do (admittedly some
> scripting languages do better in some cases). So they all apply, maybe
> even more so, to Python, Perl, Ruby, C#, etc.
>
> Even though he is an Ada bigot, I have to agree somewhat. Java, Python,
> Perl, Ruby, etc. probably shouldn't be the core of a curriculum because
> they're too high-level. But if you learn C and assembly, I don't see any
> reason not to use them.
>
> Whatta y'all think?
>
> Barry Roberts
>
>
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
>
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
