A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Stuart Ballard — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:21:55 GMT

Actually both C# and Java meet the non-proprietary bar - both have Free Software (open source) implementations, and I'd heartily recommend either as a learning language (and I *agree* with Tom's points, for what it's worth - I don't think a proprietary language should be used as a learning language).

In the case of C#, Mono provides an excellent Free compiler and runtime package, SharpDevelop is a free IDE, etc. I'm not sure about the status of the DotGNU project which was attempting to provide another alternative.

In the case of Java, Eclipse includes an IDE and a Free compiler (which is also available standalone from various sources as "ecj"), and as far as runtimes there are a whole host, from Kaffe to gcj to JamVM to cacao (all using GNU Classpath as their runtime library) to the in-progress Apache Harmony project which has made pretty good progress in a very short time due to some big corporate donations.

The point is, believing that a non-proprietary language is critical for teaching is *not* an anti-MS position or a pro-Java one. If Sun had their way I'd be just as anti-Java as I am anti-VB right now. The Free Java community exists despite Sun to at *least* the same extent that the Free C# community exists despite MS. (Still waiting on a clear statement from MS that "Mono is definitely legal and encouraged and we welcome the competition" though).

As an aside, note that I'm fine with a proprietary *implementation* of a non-proprietary language being used. I don't have a problem with using the JDK for teaching Java or VS Express for teaching C#.

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Ben Fulton — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:28:02 GMT

I buy into the original argument that proprietary vs. non-proprietary language is irrelevant - mostly because it seems to add a level of indirection where none is warranted. There just aren't so many languages that you can't talk about Java, or C#, or Ruby, directly; and as noted above, whether a language qualifies as proprietary is largely in the eye of the beholder.

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Alfred Thompson — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:59:17 GMT

SO far no one has made a good case why proprietary language shoulf not be used. Actually I'm not sure anyone has made any case for it in comments here.

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Stuart Ballard — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:17:42 GMT

Off the top of my head (some of these are incidental benefits that typically come with open source, others are inherent; I'm unaware of any proprietary language that actually meets even all of the incidental ones though)

- So that students who use a different OS at home can still experiment with the language

- So that students can share what they've learnt about the language with others who aren't in the same course, or the same school even - and their friends can easily get hold of the language to experiment with themselves

- So that the students can - without having to throw away what they've learnt and learn another language - release their programs publically with source for feedback. Sometimes even beginners come up with a great idea that could be the germ of a highly successful program. Also, if you really succeed in giving a student with natural talent the "programming bug", they'll learn rapidly by themselves beyond the course you're teaching; saying these issues "don't apply to beginners" ignores this.

- So that neither the students nor the teachers are beholden to a particular vendor continuing to provide zero-cost upgrades, security fixes, and support for OS upgrades (consider that VS2003 won't ever run correctly on Vista; suppose that Express had existed in the 2003 version but not in 2005 rather than the other way around; or remember what happened to VB6 programmers? Or further back, what if you taught QuickBasic around the time win95 came out?)

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Alfred Thompson — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:58:16 GMT

There are ways around to peoblem of a student not having the same OS at home as at work. And if fact while being able to run on more OS is good you are probably never going to get something to work everywhere. A lot of open sourse stuff does not appear to be usable on the VMS system I use regularly. At least not without a lot of work on my part.

Your second and third items are pretty much met by any language I have ever heard of proprietary or otherwise. Certianly they are met by Visual Basic .NET.

As for the fourth point you are always going to be dependent on someone unless you have great skill and unlimited time. The fact that in one case it is a company with a vested interest in supporting you and in the other you are dependent on someone just wanting to fix the problem out of the goodness of their heart seems like a win for proprietary software.

VB 6 programs and the VB 6 IDE will both be supported on Vista. I haven't tried QuickBasic, QBasic or GB Basic on Vista but I know people using them on Windows 2000 and XP. Commercial companies have a greater incentive to work on backward compatability than do open source developers.

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

SurferDude — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:14:55 GMT

Shouldn't the students be part of the decision? Most of the students I know want to learn language that get them jobs. It isn't "academic" anymore. I teach as an adjunct and the students are excited about C# and VB, and find Java boring and confusing. I have a minority of students (not minority students) that had taken years of Java programming and scheme and so forth, but NEVER got what a DLL is or really anything about Object oriented classes.

Open source is nice for a very few, but most people use Windows, there I said it: Windows. The students feel that teachers that try to use the multiple OS story to be boring and ancient. these students want to get jobs, and have no problem with learning Java and C# or VB, but aren't willing to take on languages like ROR, etc. The modern student is focused and passionate, but finds the professors and internet posters who focus on the "OPEN Source" argument as sort of "out of touch".

Modern students KNOW that they are dependent on someone else. They have no time to dig down into the O/S. They like free, but they are goin go to do nothing to improve the Open Source software. If it breaks they move on, CU.

XNA rules, over and out.

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Professor Hoshimi — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:22:04 GMT

Hi, I am a professor who is looking for Imagine Cup contestants to help me program my nanobots.

This argument about OS versus Proprietary software is interesting. What I would propose is that people who believe in Open source, and Java programming, see if they can assist me with my contest that I am involved with called the Imagine Cup. This will allow them to demonstrate that Java is a better language for students to learn over C# or VB. The contest has extensive tutorials on how to program and to participate in the game play. It is very exciting.

Using either C# or VB, students over the age of 18, attending an acredited university can participate.

I hope my friend Alfred will let me post more about this exciting contest on his site as we approach the contest start date. To participate you will need to download some free tools from Microsoft and an SDK from the Imagine Cup site.

Thank you,

Professor Hoshimi

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Alfred Thompson — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:22:20 GMT

BTW if you want a tool that runs on several OSes say so. If you want to look at source code say so. There are options available for those options that are independent of a product being proprietary or not. Lots of proprietary products run on multpile OSes. That is the reason I say that propriatary or not is irrelevant. I'm not saying that open source is bad or even that one shouldn't use it. I've released code to the wild without strings myself. I'm just saying that treating proprietary software as if it were automatically "bad" and should never be used is just wrong and not justifiable.

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Tom Hoffman — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 05:35:19 GMT

With free software, you always get the benefits outlined above. With a proprietary license, the school is dependent on the vendor, and the terms may change in future versions, or the product may be discontinued, sold to another less friendly company, etc.

Interesting Finds: October 27, 2006

Jason Haley — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 06:49:31 GMT

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Peter Rock — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:59:57 GMT

Hi Alfred,

I felt my response to your question in the comments of your previous post to be deserving of its own post. You can find it here...

http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com/2006/10/response-to-alfred-thompso_116212950756269678.html

Thanks,

Peter.

re: A Reply to an Interesting Comment - More on a first programming language

Heathen Dan — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 06:10:53 GMT

If I may be allowed to share my admittedly non-professional opinion on this subject. I agree that the proprietary-vs-nonproprietary issue is irrelevant for the most part, especially as it pertains to introductory computer programming subjects in K-12 studies.

Back in my junior high school days (rather, it's equivalent in my country), the first programming language I ever learned was GWBasic, followed by Turbo Pascal. Now, these programming languages are most likely archaic by today's standards, not to mention that they are pretty limited in capabilities. But the importance of teaching these subjects back then is not that they have immediate practical and vocational value, but that they introduce the concepts of computer programming. This is the important philosophical point, not whether it was blessed by Richard Stallman or Bill Gates. Just like conceptual mathematics introduces the ideas of numbers and operations, concepts learned in an introductory computer programming course will guide the child's later understanding of how programming languages work.

With GWBasic and Pascal we learned the idea of proper syntaxing, of proper structures in a program. Badly formatted code would result in uncompilable programs, or erratic and nonfunctional ones. To a student who has never tried using a PC before, this was both perplexing and exhilarating stuff. We learned how to troubleshoot and devise kludgy workarounds to make our code work. And while we may not get good grades with such antics, the fact that we end up with a working program was reward enough.

That's what introductory courses are all about. We can't do it all well on the first go, but the lessons we learned on the concepts of programming, how the code should "flow," that will prove indispensible later on, when some of us will end up taking college degrees (or vocational school courses) on computer programming.

And let's tackle the brouhaha on proprietary-vs-nonproprietary programming languages. I must admit ignorance with any of more advanced computer languages. I did not take any further programming courses since high school. Can VB or Java teach the concepts and ideas of computer programming in a user-friendly way? If it can, then let's teach the kids that. Can Python do that? Again, if so, then let's teach that too. The first programming language implies that it won't be the last. The kids can be taught other languages later on, if they (or perhaps the school board curriculum) require it.

As for availability, yes that is of some consideration. Kids take home their school work all the time, and computer programming is no exception. If Alfred Thompson says that there are freely available (or at worst, at nominal expense) tools for proprietary languages especially for students' use, then that will definitely be a plus.

In the end, the choice of first programming language for K-12 students must ultimately be decided by the teacher, unless the school or school board mandates a specific language.

A good programming language should not be shunned just because it's proprietary.

Ученье - свет

Items — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:31:21 GMT

Наткнулся тут на интересные посты по поводу обучения computer science .(Смотри ссылки раз , два и три