On Jan 14, 2008 11:33 AM, Levi Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The article could have been worded better in its introduction, but > what it's really arguing for is not the elimination of Java. Java > just happens to be what a lot of schools use nearly exclusively. If > they were using Python nearly exclusively, they'd have used Python as > their primary target. It doesn't make sense to argue against > something that isn't currently happening, though, so they used Java. > I'm sorry that you get offended whenever Java is mentioned in a less > than perfect light, but you're going to have to learn to deal with > that eventually.
I don't get offended. I just try to inject an alternative perspective to a group that is intuitively hostile towards Java. > They simply want greater emphasis on how computers actually work, > systems software skills, and some understanding of math and formal > methods. These are hard topics, and they're somewhat expensive to > apply, but if they're not taught in the universities, then where will > they be taught? Trade schools, task-specific training facilities, > etc. are well suited to teaching people how to use software tools and > techniques. Universities are not, but they are well-suited to > teaching hard stuff like math and formal methods. These guys are > calling for universities to take back their proper role so that in the > future, we'll have people that understand the hard stuff so that we > can continue to build airplanes and stuff after the current > programmers retire. Unfortunately, they may have to wait for a portion of that workforce to retire before the job demand (and thus salaries) will drive schools and students towards more systems development. > I think you underestimate the size and complexity of these kinds of > projects. And, on the contrary, I think Ada's strict nature enables > complex systems designed an implemented by large teams rather than > crippling them. There just aren't enough Ada programmers to pick > from, and they're all going to work for Gov't contract shops right > now, and Java works well for business support systems. Careful now. You're surrounded by scripting language enthusiasts. If they detect that you're advocating type safety and design-by-contract even further than the level provided by Java/C++, then you may get lynched. > Anyway, my point (and the point of the article) is not so much to > trumpet the virtues of Ada or to demonize Java, but to point out some > weaknesses in the currently recommended CS curriculum. "A Real > Programmer Can Write In Any Language," says one of the article > subheadings, and when a graduate can only write code in Java or a very > similar language, something is wrong. When a graduate can't write a > simple device driver for an RTOS in C, C++, or Ada, etc. something is > wrong. Being able to write a cool app in Java is a great thing, but > it's not the *only* thing one should learn. I completely agree. You're summarizing it in a sensible way. However, the sensationalized article title didn't reflect the common sense you're expressing. -Bryan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
