Slashdot Mirror
Followup On Java As "Damaging" To Students
hedley writes "A prior article on the damage Java does to CS education was discussed here recently. There was substantial feedback and the mailbox of one of the authors, Prof Dewar, also has been filled with mainly positive responses. In this followup to the article, Prof. Dewar clarifies his position on Java. In his view the core of the problem is universities 'dumbing down programs, hoping to make them more accessible and popular. Aspects of curriculum that are too demanding, or perceived as tedious, are downplayed in favor of simplified material that attracts a larger enrollment.'"
When I entered college I was started on C/C++. I learned a lot about memory management, pointers, low level system calls, using system libraries, etc. Two years into college they changed everything over to Java.
God damn, what a difference.
To this day I am happy that I was able to have those two years of C, letting me get close to the guts of the OS, forcing me to think about what I was doing every step of the way. There is no question in my mind that it made me a better programmer in general, regardless of the language.
I feel sorry for the people that start - then never leave - a much higher level language such as Java.
Love sees no species.
I think there is a difference between dumbing-down and simplification.
Really, when has a tool ruined the skill set of an industry? The worst a tool does is eliminate certain roles or industries altogether - and those who filled those roles will always complain (and sometimes revolt).
From the study of C and Java I can say that for 90% of the tasks I've taken on I've needed no more than Java (and Java would in fact be overkill).
This reminds me of the controversy when Feynman diagrams were first shown. These diagrams were a much simpler way of expressing complex summations - but the old-school (some pretty impressive names) felt that these diagrams were a dumbing-down and that the historical mathematics were the proper way to express these systems.
Always a new tech will simplify something and those who have had to trudge through the complexity will shoot-down its simplicity - this happened with the GUI, and I have a feeling about 84% of you are reading this statement on a GUI desktop.
There will always be benefits to be had from the classic way of doing things, but new tools enable people to climb to new heights. The brain only has so many cycles, If they don't need to be wasted with pointers and bleedingly-effecient machine code then save those brain cycles for algorithms and interface design.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
At the University of Washington, where I am a student, the introduction programming courses teach Java. These courses seem to serve two purposes. A number of majors outside of computer science require them for the general background knowledge of how computer languages work. They also are prerequisites to entering a CS major, so they serve to weed out people who really don't belong in a technical major. Although I don't care much for Java itself, there are a number of benefits to using it in these introductory classes. First of all, when you're working with a bunch of noobs, it is really nice to have the platform independence that Java offers. Secondly, all of the libraries, at least from my experience, are extremely well documented. But most of all, most of the people that take an introductory programming course won't ever reach the level of sophistication that C requires, so teaching C would be kind of overkill. And those of us who really will continue on to work requiring C, really shouldn't have a problem learning it.
While this point may be valid, it's not like CS degrees were assurances of any level of competence anytime in my recent memory (I've spent about 15 years in IT).
About all I can suggest is that students who are inclined to supplement their educations through their own creative pursuits will continue to surpass those who treat CS simply as a profitable skill set. If anything, simplifying CS courses will assist potential employers in identifying those who aspire to excellence in the field and those who are merely pursuing a career.
The curriculum in a BS program, as I have always understood it - isn't designed to necessarily prepare you to enter the workforce with all the "hands-on" technical skills - no matter what discipline its in.
If you're to learn "hands-on" skills to apply towards work, that's what an associates degree, or trade-school is about
Look at it this way - if the world went post-apocalyptic tomorrow, and everyone "knew Java", we'd all be screwed, because no-one would understand all the theory and crap behind compiler design, OS design, carnal maps, finite automina and all the other "fundamentals" on which everything is built. Just like if everyone got their ACE automotive technicians certificates, we'd have no one who knew how to design the cars.
Now I'm not saying that universities don't try to balance out the BS curriculum with real-world, practical stuff - of course they do - but that's the idea.
In my view, school gives you the foundation, and it's up to you to apply it. Reality is, once you get out there, any specific tools, languages, etc. change so fast anyway - a BS degree teaches the foundation, and its up to you to build on it
Disclaimer: I'm an EE drop out - basically completely self-taught - the same rules apply - know the foundation - and your own your own from there.
Aspects of curriculum that are too demanding, or perceived as tedious, are downplayed in favor of simplified material that attracts a larger enrollment.
Let me be the first to welcome you to higher education.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
I don't see why students can't learn both Java (or C#, etc.) and C. I first learned Java in my undergraduate days, then in the second year we learned C++. After that we were pretty much expected to learn whatever language we needed with minimal instruction. It's not like CS programs need to do only one or only the other.
High-Level != Non-Innovative
I don't know why some people think that something can't be innovative if it's high-level. I frankly don't care whether something's written in assembly or JavaScript. It it brings something new and useful to the table, it's innovative in my book.
Different Skillsets, Different Challanges
Constructing a low-level system utility and architecting a large enterprise web-based application are two fundamentally different types of problems. It's true that students need to understand memory management and low-level OS concepts. But quite frankly students who come out of Universities understanding only this type of development consistently demonstrate a complete inability to design an enterprise web application using OO design patterns, SOA, and reusable components. There are significant technical challanges involved in this type of application development. They're just not the same as when you're living in the low-level world of systems programming.
Ever heard of reuse?
I don't know whether this guy seriously believes that students shouldn't be leveraging libraries in their code, but I've got news: that's the way the world works. It's true you should be able to dive into the low-level code if there is a specific need to, but nobody's going to pay you to reinvent the wheel (anyone who insists on implementing their own sorting algorithms in the real-world is probably a fool.) Reuse is something software engineering strives for, so why should we be painting it out to be something evil?
Besides, where do you draw the line? I know some people in the supercomputing industry that feel C is "too high-level and bloated". They would like to see students spending most of their time in Fortran and assembly. So...do we expect students to write all their software in assembly? Should students be designing everything using sequential circuits and skip the software alltogether? My point is that what's considered "high-level" is very relative, and there's no good justification to sitting exclusively any any level or another. Part of being a good engineer is knowing how to select the right tool for the right job. Sometimes that's assembly, and sometimes that's Java. As long as you're proficient in multiple styles of programming, you should be able to handle most anything you need to.
-James
It's not just Computer Science. When it's not being dumbed down, it's often falling victim to tenured professors who are incompetent. That's what happened to us at my alma mater. We had some brilliant professors who were tenured, couldn't communicate, and frequently were so slothful that you couldn't practically learn from your mistakes. We'd get homework from the first few weeks back halfway between the midterm and final in some cases.
I graduated with a 2.8 GPA overall, and about a 2.5 GPA in my major. That was mostly because projects were usually 10% to 20% of our grade. One exam was usually worth all project work combined. Our valedictorian, a girl who could regurgitate raw data on exams, but could barely write hello world in any language, had a 4.0 in Computer Science.
A big problem that I saw was the hand-holding. Professors don't feel confident because of the crop of students they have, in just telling students that figuring out their development tools is their problem, not the professor's obligation to teach them.
This reminds me of the controversy when Feynman diagrams were first shown. These diagrams were a much simpler way of expressing complex summations - but the old-school (some pretty impressive names) felt that these diagrams were a dumbing-down and that the historical mathematics were the proper way to express these systems.
Feynman diagrams are just another way of looking at things. It's another viewpoint of the same thing.
Java and C don't map so well. There are some things for which only C makes sense currently, such as driver development. Java is a virtual machine. Although it's possible to beat, mangle, and force java into submission and make it do those things, that's not what it's for. All those JNI libraries that Java needs to actually talk to your machine - they're written in C. AFAIK, nobody is writing an OS or even drivers in Java. I'd even bet that the first few implementations of Java were written in C/C++.
When Java is the first thing you learn, you learn sloppy IMHO. You just assume there is a garbage collector. You can allocate whatever you want, whenever you want, and not have to think about scope. If you ever do have to do some system work later on in your career - all of these notions will be new. You'll have to think about pointers, and the size of an object in memory, and how long you should hold on to it before you free up that memory. You'll suffer serious setbacks when it's time to program down to the wire.
Java is a beautiful language - my personal favorite - for application development, but application development isn't all there is.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The "no" is with regards to comp sci being for a certain kind of person. It's for a certain kind of perspective, but anyone can learn to see things from any perspective they choose. It's not equally easy for all people, so the more people you want to have that perspective, the more appealing you need to make it. But that is very different from changing the perspective, which is what fee-driven universities tend to do. No. Leave the perspective alone. Then how to make it more appealing? After all, everyone hates numbers, right? Wrong. In fact, up until about the ages of 11 or 12, you'll find something like two to three times as many people absolutely love numbers, algebra, equations, algorithms and problem solving. (This is based on the fact that the number of boys who like maths stuff remains unchanged, but girls go from outnumbering boys as geeks younger than that to being virtually non-existent soon after.) If you ask people (and I have) over the age of 18 about their experiences in learning maths or science, guess what! You rarely hear complaints about the subjects themselves - it's almost invariably the teachers.
So? So, if you want to double the number of CS students and revert to a tough, purist syllabus, all you need to do is replace all the middle school teachers with people who have an interest in the subject and a passion for educating the students, rather than an interest in the paycheck and a passion for the students. Doesn't seem too tough.
(Of course, it's easier if the teachers are payed a living wage, or better, so that you can recruit talent rather than whoever is on the scrapheap of life.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I agree with the professor's statements -- mostly. The fact is that Java is not to blame, a lack of rigor and mathematics is. I love Java, not because of all the wonderful graphical fiddling, but because J2EE is a great server-side environment. I have taken the trouble to understand all of the server-level stuff before abstracting it away into an EJB; I understand what work the server is doing for me, and know how to fine-tune that behavior if necessary. Likewise, students should have to write GUI code in a text editor before learning how to use the IDE to save time. Anyone who expects to do any serious software engineering definitely needs to take a course in Algorithms. Math should not be ignored, as it is quite often the mathematics that is packaged up into a neat application, invisible to the end-user.
It's true, you can teach people how to use an IDE like a software application, and you will get "programmers" that can put together a basic program with no problems. Ask them to start debugging, add complex features, etc., however, and they have no idea how to begin. I've no problem with Prof. Dewar lambasting these people as they are a large problem in IT today. However to simply point the finger at Java (or .NET for that matter) misses the point entirely.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Personally I'd rather have the high school grad that likes to mess around with programming and would like an internship than the same kid after 4 years of college. The intern is grateful that he's getting paid to learn. The college kid thinks he should now be ready to start paying off his student loans, bu thinks he know enough to get a job. The college kid spent 4 years learning java and c at a base level (meaning spending half of that time learning syntax and idiosyncrasies rather than working on actual challenges Worse case scenario with the intern- I lose an entry level employee- I can fire and hire those as needed. With the college kid, worse case becomes a question from the CIO: why didn't I just outsource the projects instead?
I do not blame the professors on this issue. America sends completly unprepared kids from high school to college so they can get a job afterward. For an example see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI&NR=1
It would be amazing if people actually read the article every once in a while. :-/
I make a living as a Java programmer. I enjoy the work I do and feel that no other language/platform can even touch Java's capabilities in team and enterprise development. Even for single-programmer development, there are a lot of situations where Java is the solution to end all solutions.
That being said, I agree with the article.
As the author tried to explain, programmers need a solid foundation in data structures and algorithms before they should even begin looking at Java. The specific problem he calls out (which I actually feel only scratches the surface) is that Java offers such a featureful API that the programmer isn't forced to learn the basics. He is able to simply use a Hashtable, a Sort, a LinkedList, or whatever he needs without understanding why it works. Which is a very dangerous thing for someone training to be a Computer Scientist.
A much better approach is to force the student to work through lower-level programming before ever reaching a modern layer that abstracts everything away. Otherwise the student is liable to shoot himself in the foot at a much later date. (Primarily due to a lack of knowledge.) This is very comparable to many sports where expensive, advanced equipment can be an asset to a well-trained athlete. But in the hands of an amateur, the attributes that make the equipment powerful becomes liabilities - and even barriers! - to the athlete's success.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm thinking that a good CS Degree should give you the background in compilers, machine architecture and structures, languages (in the theoretical sense), so that, you could write your own cheesy VM + byte code compiler for a senior project.
This is my sig.
Both C and Java have their purposes. I'd use C to teach pointers, memory management, recursion and maybe even complex data structures and algorithms. I'd use Java to teach OO. I would also go back to C when teaching operating systems, and to Java when teaching design patterns and software development methodologies. But I believe that neither should be used as an intro to programming.
The first course on programming is where you can turn off a lot of students if the language gets in the way (weird syntax, a compiler with cryptic error messages, a mammoth virtual machine, etc.). If all you want is teach variables, conditions, loops, and simple data structures in order to solve simple problems, why not use something like Python, Pascal or Scheme? Let's please leave concerns like the understanding of computer architecture and efficiency (C) and software engineering (Java) for later courses. The C-centric crowd needs to understand that Turing is not married to von Neuman: understanding of pointers is not necessary for computing and algorithm design (hello Lisp?). The Java-centric crowd needs to understand that, for some, programming is just a tool (for problem-solving) and not a discipline (software engineering).
And this does NOT mean I'm promoting the dilution of the curriculum. In fact, because students would get up to speed faster, you could solve more complex problems earlier, and actually hit those issues of efficiency and code reuse that C and Java are respectively supposed to solve. They will then be ready to enjoy and understand those courses that follow.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
You'll have to forgive me, but I must raise an eyebrow at this. While the (generically speaking) Java Platform has many potential homes, it has found no better home for its technology than on big iron. Its straightforward design allows for the Virtual Machine to automatically adapt to memory, processors, and optimize away sections of code at runtime in ways that a static compiler will never be able to match. In addition, Java's natural fault tolerance allows for complex multiuser applications that provide logical firewalls between each user. Except in cases of poorly designed code (extremely poorly!), no single user can take down the entire application.
If anything, Java is the ideal solution for Big Iron usage. Which is why I must ask you to clarify. There are certainly super-computing applications where Java is a poor fit. This is due the non-standard low-level design of the hardware that requires a completely different toolkit to take advantage of. (Like it or not Cell is a prime example of this environment.) Other than that exception, though, I have a hard time imagining where Java would be ill suited for Big Iron work.
I vehemently disagree with this statement. I deal with the incredible task of training amateurs on a regular basis. (Some are even degreed-idiots.) VB is friendly to these amateurs. PHP is friendly to these amateurs.
As I said, Java is a wonderful tool in the hands of an experienced programmer who knows what it is capable of. In the hands of an amateur or (sometimes worse!) an old hand who's not used to the tools that Java offers, using Java in your project is like asking for your company to be nuked from orbit.
I'm not offended. I'm merely perplexed. You sound like the type of fellow who should have a solid understanding of the platform. So perhaps I am merely misunderstanding your statements?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This is probably where I fit. :)
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
An excellent point, which does indeed refute the authors' argument. To furhter back your comment, I've done advanced algorithms in Java before; sometimes as just a learning experience. There are no barriers to going low-level if you want to. However, I did mention that I felt that their argument only scratched the surface.
My own argument tends to go farther down the line to the point of obtaining an understanding of how to code in the first place. What I have found is that a new programmer rarely knows how to put one line of code in front of another. (Yes, the mere logic of ordering statements often escapes them.) Introducing a new programmer to an object oriented environment at an early stage forces them to think in terms of "magic".
"Yeah, don't worry about that 'public class HelloWorld' bit. We'll get to that later."
"Trust me. You need to have that import in your code. Otherwise it won't work."
"We'll get to that main() method later."
"Why System.out.println? Don't worry, you'll understand that once you understand objects and fields and methods. For now we're just compiling a simple [ed: *cough*] Hello World program."
If these barriers were truly debilitating to a student, then we wouldn't have a problem. They'd learn what they needed to know along the way. Unfortunately, these barriers are far more insidious than that. The student knows this magic works without understanding how it works. So he's able to coast through a variety of tasks without ever worrying about it. Then when he gets to the real world... oops. You mean that wasn't actually magic? I needed to know what that did? But all I ever learned was some control structures! My professor didn't even make me format my code properly!
*sigh*
That's the scene I see far too often. A good programmer can't do a good job unless he knows why he's doing it.
"But AKAImBatman," you say. "Won't most kids going into school these days have prior exposure to programming?"
You are correct! Which makes teaching them the basics that much more important. Once again, when they muddled through as teenagers, they focused on WHAT they could do and not WHY they could do it. Code snippets and tutorials and IDEs abounded! They didn't need to KNOW what they were doing. Just fiddle enough and it will work!
If you take things down to a low level, the majority of the students will be forced to learn or find an easier major. If they already know what you're teaching, then great! They can help with the rest of the class. But if they don't, then they're learning something priceless. Either way, the knowledge is KEY to data structures. One cannot truly understand the intent of most algorithms and data structures until he's visited the metal of the machine and tried to work with the likes of strings, memory allocation, and low-level hardware control. That's when he truly "gets it" and 40+ years of computer science suddenly SNAP into place.
"Ohhhh, I get it! I really do! Hey, I had problem X a month ago that I could have solved if I had just..."
Best. Sound. Evar.
(P.S. In case you're wondering? C++ should NEVER be taught in school. Worst drain bramage you can do to a poor kid. Especially as his first language!)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
A few years ago I taught a class in Java. I program in Java professionally, so I know it is a powerful language. In learning Delphi I developed Object Orientated skills which easily transferred to Java. The main principle of Java is protecting the developer from themselves, with strict typing and automatic memory management. The main problem with C/C++ is programmers stuffing up memory allocation. Right now I manage a project that has C++ code, and we still deal with unexplained fatal crashes and such like. Anyhooo....
I thought it would be good to teach Java. Problem is that you are forced to make everything a class. That means you have the choice of either teaching all the principles of objects in the very first lesson - even before variables, or telling your class to ignore all the cruft at the top while you try to teach the basics. Even then basic things like keyboard input and outputs require in depth explanations of the Java API. I spent most of my time trying to explain why everything was so complex in Java.
Bottom line; the best language to teach programming is Python in my experience. You can write a one line hello world easily and teach all the basic principles of programming. I don't agree that languages like C should be taught first, as they tend to overwhelm students with details of the language rather than the principles. Python certainly isn't an endpoint. A professional developer should know several languages, even if they are not 'commercially proficient'.
The problem with Python, to be brutally honest is the poor quality of the documentation. I'm not talking about core Python so much as libraries. Often I get libraries and then spend ages trying to find references about how to use them.
Personally, I would go for a language with an interactive REPL environment, preferably one that allows/encourages functional style (Scheme, Python, Lua, etc.) to learn the concepts of computer programming. Not many programming languages can teach you that faster than a good Lisp dialect. C would be a distant second.
I am one of those passionate about IT (incidentally, I am also self-taught). While I recognize that those for whom IT (not just programming) is a passion are, in general, much more competent than those for whom IT is just a source of income, the reality is just that there are simply not enough of us. As such, I recognize that I cannot expect most of my colleagues to get excited about their job as I do, and it is all good anyway. It's really just too bad for them, I hope they have fulfilling hobbies.
...
After all, the situation is not really surprising. I know very few people (if any!) that are *passionate* about accounting. Yet, millions of accountants worldwide reliably make the numbers add up. These unpassionate accountants do good services on average and make our economic system run smoothly; without them, it would collapse. I am grateful someone else is willing to do it, because I could not stand having to do it myself. Why would IT be any different?
I am sure someone will try to invalidate my point saying the IT-as-income people have negative productivity, and hence we would be better off without them. Well, considering how few of us there are, I doubt we could make up for the horde. And I am already overworked as it is
:wq
Yep, that's how I do it, too. I like to say I took way too much math to ever learn how to multiply, but if you show me the numbers, I can usually guestimate quickly and move on. In your example, I'd just say it's something between 4,000 (40*100) and 4,500 (45*100), and in most cases move on from there. Especially as an engineer, I almost always know my required precision when doing math. Computing run-time or memory usage I only do within 20%. Even if I need 6 significant digits, I do the simplified calculations and make sure my final answer falls within my precision error from my guess.
Once in college, the Electronics 101 professor handed out a really tough equation to solve. However, our standard practice was to only write out the answer to six significant digits. I realized in about 30 seconds that only one term in the sums on either side could contribute any significant digits, and I had the answer in a couple of minutes. The rest of the class thrashed out a solution over multiple pages of computations, and only a few of them got it right. I thought the professor was going to give a valuable real-world lesson on how real engineers do things, but no... the next lecture was entirely about solving the math the hard way. He sucked as a professor... completely lacking in creativity (he was a French visiting prof... most profs at my school were quite good).
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
I happen to agree with the good professor that the best thing you can do in college is to learn to think deeply and critically as well as communicate, though to my mind that speaks more strongly to a good liberal arts component of education than to the specific language choice within a CS major. You might not think think learning history or economics or English make you a better programmer, but they do. By learning different modalities of thinking, you become more aware of the strengths and weakness of your own methods. Not to mention that good engineering nearly always involves communication in the form or requirements and design. But I digress...
I don't know how you tackle this make the courses hard vs. make them accessible issue. The reality is that a demanding course will in fact turn off a lot of students, and that does represent in some way a failure of the university's mission. On the other hand a demanding course (especially math) make a much, much, much better programmer/engineer/computer. Think of all the hollering software pundits do about how a good programmer can be 10 times as productive as a mediocre one - this is true and a lot of the skill of that star programmer comes down to grasp of deep algorithmic and mathematical concepts. So what do you do about the fact that most people are neither prepared nor dispositionally inclined to deal with those demands when they are 18 years old and just entering college, particularly if their family and friends are not that academically inclined and can't help them keep faith and slog through hard and sometimes tedious preparation? What's most fair to the students? It's not all that clear to me.