Java is a whipping boy, and I also have my problems with it, but one of its minor strengths is that it is clean enough for a teaching language (especially for total neophytes). Here is the much lambasted manner of outputting:
System.out.println("Hello world");
...in fact, this is well organized. "System" is a namespace. "out" is a static variable. "println" is a static function. "Hello world" is a String. These things all exist in an orderly world. A professor could explain a lot of key elements of language design with that one line. What's this:
print("Hello world")
...it's shorthand for much the same. Easier? Yep. But it's glossing over a lot of details that students need to know.
So when you come at it from a teaching angle, you're maybe making a mistake. Python/Ruby/LISP all have their WTFs that will throw off students, even if they're all better languages than Java.
Java's a horrible language for teaching. If you think this...
System.out.println("Hello world");
Is easier to understand than this...
print("Hello world")
Then you've forgotten what it's like to be a beginner.
Java's not even a good example of what OO is, and it has way too much syntax and special keywords (something like 50) for teaching.
Python is a far better language for teaching, Smalltalk would be even better because it's much simpler, has only a handful of keywords, and a much more consistent and simpler syntax.
In any case, students should begins with a dynamic language where they don't have to think about manifest types that they aren't ready to understand anyway. It's also much faster working in a workspace or REPL where you have instant feedback and can experiment without messing around with compilers.
I should also point out that your Java example won't even compile, you need to wrap it in a class and a main function to even attempt to compile and run it. Tell me again how simple this is..
class World {
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println("Hello World!");
}
}
Not to mention that you have to save it in a file called World.java and it will compile to World.class. If you change the contents of a file, the first line, you also have to change the name of the file. How does that make sense to a beginner?
I still think Java is just a cruel joke on the part of the authors. I don't think they really thought manifest typing was a good idea. I don't think they really thought that Java's OO system was any good.
I think we will be seeing a paper soon that has a title like, "How bad could a programming language be before people stopped using it? A case study on Java."
I think judging a language by "Hello-world" is a mistake.
Sure, some languages have a fixed overhead for creating a program. Some have needless syntax fluff that doesn't do all that much, but it's actually a good skill IMHO to be able to identify and see through that fluff to the core elements of the code.
When we pick up a book do we judge it based on the index at the back and the preface and the publishing info at the start? We probably just ignore those bits.
I think in these sorts of classes it'd actually be a good idea to spend several weeks looking at other peoples code and analyzing what it does. Being able to read code properly is a really important skill I think people should master before they even start with writing hello-world themselves.
Like I said earlier, you've forgotten what it's like to be a beginner or you've not had much experience with teaching them. Beginners don't need to be able to see through fluff, they can't, the fluff needs to be gone entirely.
They need to be taught with languages that have no fluff so they learn the basics of thinking logically, algorithmically. They aren't ready to deal with the complexities of dealing with a particular languages quirks and learning to please its compiler with voodoo incantations like int, char, string, long, etc. They aren't even ready to understand that there are differences between languages, so their first language needs to be one that teaches concepts that apply to all languages.
They need to learn what functions are, what conditionals are, what loops are, what recursion is, in their simplest forms, and more than anything they need to see immediate success and running programs or they won't maintain interest long enough to get anywhere near the harder optional stuff like types and compiled languages. As soon as types come into play, you've advanced to an intermediate level, way over the head of beginners.
Beginners and manifest/statically typed languages do not mix well. The closest a student should get to Java, is JavaScript, but they'd be much better off learning Python, Scheme, and Smalltalk before getting anywhere near any of C's bastard children.
One of the best skills to learn is to see through fluff and understand what is going on. I'd actually say that the best first language to learn would be assembly language. It's insanely simple, but there's a lot of fluff, so you have to learn how to 'read' code in terms of overall structure/flow instead of focusing on each individual instruction.
I'm still not convinced learning in classes is going to produce anything but mediocre programmers though.
Learning to see through the fluff is not a beginner skill. I'll just stop here and say I think you'd make a poor teacher because you show little if any empathy or awareness of what it means to not know something or how important it is for a beginner to have small successes and working programs right from the start.
I agree I would make a bad teacher for a general class. I think programming skill is largely natural talent and isn't something that can be taught.
I'd also say that the biggest skill anyone can have is the ability to self learn. Being taught the fundamentals of programming in a class doesn't bode well for future hacker ability IMHO.
If someone has a natural talent for it, it can be nurtured, but trying to teach just anyone how to program is the reason we have so many mediocre programmers in the industry. Some people should give up on programming.
Imagine anyone could go to art college, get a job as an artist, and be employed at big industries "blending in" and never really rated on their art work. This is the issue with programming. At the moment, there's this strange belief that anyone can be a great programmer - that it's just typing. Mediocre and bad programmers who may have a piece of paper saying they completed courses, are allowed jobs in industry.
I think programming skill is largely natural talent and isn't something that can be taught.
I disagree, sort of; thinking logically is the natural talent, being good at programming is a mere side effect. People who are inherently bad at associating cause and effect, just aren't going to be good at anything that requires logic and rational thinking.
but trying to teach just anyone how to program is the reason we have so many mediocre programmers in the industry.
No it isn't, people who have no natural talent for programming don't just do it for no reason, they do it because the pay is attractive and this is one of the few fields where one can get a pretty high paying job without any degree at all.
The dot com boom and the absurdly high salaries that were thrown out to anyone that could slap together some HTML is the reason we're currently stuck with so many mediocre programmers. As long as someone can fake it, and land a nice paying job, hordes of mediocre fakers will continue calling themselves programmers.
It's not even that these people can't be taught to program well, they simply have no interest in programming well. They learn just enough to get by, collect a paycheck, and go home. The thing missing isn't ability, it's interest. This isn't something limited to our field either, it happens in any field where $$ is not linked to actual performance or proof of skill; managers are another good example.
I agree - methodical scientific thought processes are the talent. I disagree about degrees though. When someone says they have a degree in computer science, I'd always be very weary.
If you were to commission a portrait of yourself, would you choose an artist based on his previous works, or based on some certificate saying he completed a course on art at some college? I know which I'd base it on.
I wasn't claiming a degree was necessary, or even an indicator of success in programming, merely that it tends to filter out the people who have no interest in the subject. Sadly, many people who are interested are ruined in college by being taught Java.
Past work is always a better indicator than any recommendation, be it on paper or verbal, but past work is proof of skill, which I already mentioned.
I find that the preface of a book is often highly indicative of the content of the book. The preface of a good book will generally talk about a few abstract themes which guide the exposition. The preface of a poor book will be a sort of random collection of notes, ideas, and guidelines. One textbook I looked at (on EE) started with a paragraph that went something like "Scientists understand the world by creating models. A model reflects reality. A model has components, each one of which corresponds to something in the world." The book was, unsurprisingly, no good.
In a similar way, Java's verbosity in even the simplest examples speaks to a certain kind of language design. Java's design is based on indulgence in the idea that difficult things can be made somehow easier or more reliable if the difficulty is hidden by a lot of simple, but needless verbiage.
"I think in these sorts of classes it'd actually be a good idea to spend several weeks looking at other peoples code and analyzing what it does."
I think that would just result in a lot of students dropping out. As a beginner, it's nice to get the computer to actually do something - even if it's just printing out a stupid message.
If I was setting up a curricula, each incoming student would deal with a digital logic trainer. Okay? Wires and transistors. An 18 year old should learn the fundamentals and not the shortcuts. That's my opinion--maybe I'm wrong. Java is hardly the best teaching language, but it is closer to the bone than a lot of things....
The problem is that you're confusing a concept with its implementation. If it is a basic programming class, there are a whole lot of concepts that should be learned before worrying about the implementation.
Algorithms, variables, program flow, functions. Those are the real fundamentals... things that can even be analyzed in pseudo-code, no need to get into a particular language's idiosyncrasies.
<pedant mode>
java.lang.System is class, not a namespace (although classes in Java are overloaded to function as namespaces as well as modules and data type definitions). println() is not a static method, but an instance method of the java.io.PrintStream class. out is a static variable in the System class of type PrintStream which refers to an instance of that class, on which we invoke the method println().
</pedant mode>
...which is a lot to demand of a beginner to understand in his very first program.
I'm self-taught myself, and for me, having a humanities background, C/assembly and Scheme was a perfect combination for understanding both how computers actually work and what computation is all about (to the extent that I understand either!).
I think Java is a nice language in many ways, but I think its dominant position as a teaching language is due to market demand more than any inherent suitability for that role.
>glossing over a lot of details that students need to know.
If you're teaching them object oriented programming. Why would you be teaching beginners object oriented programming?
I give the engineering programming classes at Pitt a fair amount of credit. Two semesters -- the first semester covers HTML as a reasonably useful introduction to the idea of structured text files, then Matlab to introduce if statements, loops, and functions in an environment with a friendly console. The second semester was C. Mostly everyone got it -- those that failed out of engineering didn't fail because of programming class.
The classes were taught/conceived by a professor whose primary research interest is engineering education.
