Exam Board Deletes C and PHP From CompSci A-Levels

VitaminB52 writes "A-level computer science students will no longer be taught C, C#, or PHP from next year following a decision to withdraw the languages by the largest UK exam board. Schools teaching the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance's (AQA) COMP1 syllabus have been asked to use one of its other approved languages — Java, Pascal/Delphi, Python 2.6, Python 3.1, Visual Basic 6, and VB.Net 2008. Pascal/Delphi is 'highly recommended' by the exam board because it is stable and was designed to teach programming and problem-solving."

Comments

Maybe I'm missing something

[Tim C]

But, so what?

If you understand programming, picking up any given language is straightforward.

If you don't understand programming, it doesn't really matter what languages you know.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

If picking up any given language is straightforward, then why does everyone list the languages they know on their resume?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[DangerFace]

Maybe because resumes get sent to HR and management, not experienced programmers?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[delinear]

I guess it depends if we expect the exams to be about learning the foundations, or actually learning practical skills. If it's the former, the language isn't so important as they'll need to do a fair amount of learning on the job, if it's the latter then the language could be valuable experience prior to their first role. From personal experience, I'd rather universities taught the foundations and didn't try to instill a sense of practical knowledge, because most of the university graduates I interview who do have practical knowledge tend to have been taught bad or very outdated practice, and it's much harder to break them out of those practices and teach the right way than it is to teach someone who knows the underlying principles the right way from scratch. Until universities can keep up with the fast pace of "web languages", they should stick to ensuring students unerstand the theory above all.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[Trepidity]

Partly because it's straightforward in principle, but takes some time in practice. There are at least two levels of language knowledge: having some idea of how to write things in the language, and knowing the languages's quirks, best practices, pitfalls, and, generally, pragmatics. The first is the stuff that anyone with a strong CS background should be able to pick up. But the latter requires just a lot of experience. If you take a complex language like C++, how does one learn which of the (many) features interact subtly with each other, and where the (many) pitfalls lie? More or less, through experience. If someone on your C++ team is a smart person with a strong CS background but has programmed C++ for less than 6 months, you should suspect they haven't yet picked up all the pragmatics, no matter how smart they are. That's just how things work.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[AliasMarlowe]

If you understand programming, picking up any given language is straightforward.

Indeed. But it probably helps if you start by learning a fairly well-structured language. Preferably a couple of quite different languages. My first two were Fortran-66 and APL/360, which are almost as different as you can get (and which also reveal my age). The next few languages were PL/I, Focal, C, Basic, and LaTeX, and these have been followed by numerous others.

Adding Pascal/Delphi to the list is a good idea, but dropping C and PHP while retaining VB and VB.net is beyond any sane comprehension.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[teh kurisu]

I find that knowing the language syntax is only half the battle. Learning how to use the libraries properly (standard or not) takes much, much longer.

My education in programming has largely been in Java since late high school and all the way through university, with deviations along the way into VB, C, PHP and PROLOG. Recently at work, I've had to pick up C++ in order to do some Symbian development.

Picking up what I needed to know of C++ was the easiest part. Learning how to use the Symbian C++ libraries, on the other hand, has been a monumental task, and one that has largely been ditched in favour of Qt for Symbian, which is much, much easier to get to grips with.

In theory I can now put 'knows C++' on my CV. I don't really. I've hardly used the standard libraries. I'm pretty confident I could write a Qt-based C++ app without too much trouble, either on the desktop or on Symbian. But I wouldn't have the first clue where to start if I was asked to write a Windows app, without a decent bit of learning and training. And I would avoid native Symbian like the plague.

I'm no expert in CV writing (I'm still in my first proper job after leaving uni), but I think that listing the things that you have done, and then mentioning the languages and environments that they were done in, is better than simply listing the languages that you know.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[AlecC]

I would agree with this based on my experience learning Java. With many years C++ experience, learning the Java syntax was half a day with a book, and being able to write reasonably good code wehich did what I expected was about two days. But, reckoning by hindsight, it was about eighteen months before I was a good Java programmer with all the language idioms at my fingertips and a good knowledge of all the pitfalls. And that is with a clean, well designed, language. With a hybrid, lower level, and sprawling language like C++, I reckon that it will take even longer to reach that level. I doubt that more than a few percent of C++ programmers are really masters of all aspects of the language. I have to say that, while I call myself a good C++ programmer, I approach writing templates, other than the most trivial, with fear and trembling. And templated overloaded operators need even more care.

Which, to return to the subject, means that if you are teaching "vocationally", the sooner you get students started on their target language the better. Whereas if you are teaching theoretically, you want the cleanest and simplest example of each class of language. Java and Python fill both needs, Pascal/Delphi is clean but has little industry use. VB is the odd one out: widely used, but not particularly clean and simple.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[mangu]

Trying to argue that you extensive knowledge of Pascal, JAVA and Assembly for the given platform means you will be able to work efficiently anyways, since you'll very quickly pick up the C knowledge needed, probably won't get you hired, even if it is true.

Only it's not true. A programmer who doesn't know C is either very lazy or, given the relative abundance of each language suffers from some weird form of autism.

There's no denying it, C is the basis of everything in computing. Anyone who has studied or done any professional work in computing has had contact with the C language at some time. A programmer who never had at least the curiosity to learn C, if only to understand some function he downloaded from the web, will never, ever, be a competent programmer.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. I've been a professional developer for 15 years now (as in, it's paid all my bills for all that time). Last time I touched C was back in school.

There's a freakin' forest of languages out there, and C is not some holy grail that sucks all into its gravity well.

If I should ever actually need it, I'll pick it up. Just as with any other language I've learned through the years.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

The C programming language can be hard if you don't have a solid understanding of computers. It's easier to learn after you've got an understanding of other areas. Pointers, for example, make a lot more sense when you know they represent memory addresses. Personally I think that if you're teaching programming, you should stick with a more abstract language. That way, you can concentrate just on programming: Loops, conditional executions, etc.. Things like preprocessors, compilers and linkers, which you will need to know about to some extent to code in C, are probably best left to a separate courses.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[heathen_01]

No so, everything is Java is a pointer. Its just that the C syntax is difficult.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[Jurily]

but we have some bright young programmers who have only seen Pascal (from early training), Java, Python, and C#

Are they bright in terms of Get Shit Done(tm) or in terms of Understand The Cost Of Your Code? While C may no longer be the lowest common denominator between languages, frameworks, etc., it's still basically structured assembly, thus ideal for learning the hardware model, and all its implications on higher level software. Interpreted/JIT languages provide a useful abstraction over the hardware, but it's by no means perfect. And when the abstraction breaks, you won't know while your simple little script takes too long. StringBuilder is the idiomatic example, I believe.

As with all software development magic bullets, it only works as advertised if you already know what you'd do without it.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[Jurily]

Everyone who agrees with parent, please read this article NOW.

You don't learn C for the syntax, you learn it for the side effects.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[luis_a_espinal]

Trying to argue that you extensive knowledge of Pascal, JAVA and Assembly for the given platform means you will be able to work efficiently anyways, since you'll very quickly pick up the C knowledge needed, probably won't get you hired, even if it is true.

Only it's not true. A programmer who doesn't know C is either very lazy or, given the relative abundance of each language suffers from some weird form of autism.

There's no denying it, C is the basis of everything in computing. Anyone who has studied or done any professional work in computing has had contact with the C language at some time. A programmer who never had at least the curiosity to learn C, if only to understand some function he downloaded from the web, will never, ever, be a competent programmer.

Is that still true? A decade or so ago it would have been, but we have some bright young programmers who have only seen Pascal (from early training), Java, Python, and C#.

The operative word is some. These programmers you mentioned would have be bright ones almost regardless of the programming languages they have been exposed to. And that goes to say more about their aptitude and their instructor's aptitude than anything else.

But just because some exhibit great programming skills w/o having been exposed (at least cursorily) to C, that does not mean that extends to the rest. Purely anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt, but I've found that, in general, programming proficiency is proportionally related to one's exposure to natively compiled programming languages where explicit resource allocation/de-allocation is required (Pascal-like languages, Ada, C/C++ come to mind.)

Many examples now are in one of these languages or pseudocode.

Many examples of what? Memory-managed application-level problems? Yes. There is a whole class of problems that you cannot illustrate with such languages/pseudocode. Application-level programming is just a subset of programming as a whole.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[Bing Tsher E]

"C is Hard. Students shouldn't have to learn anything that is hard. Think of how it might affect their GPA!"

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[nomadic]

C is historic, and not something I think anyone should want to ever use (why use an abacus when you have a calculator).

So you're advocating they completely cease work on the Linux kernel? Or port the entire codebase over to another language? Isn't that a lot of work?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[i_ate_god]

If picking up any given language is straightforward, then why does everyone list the languages they know on their resume?

Because it also can demonstrate knowledge of libraries. I picked up the Java syntax in one day. Then I had to sift through pages and pages of documentation for the standard SDK, and various other APIs and SDKs and whatnot. Just because you understand a syntax, doesn't mean you're efficient in programming that language. I know the syntax of Python, but I don't know it's quirks, so I'm not very good in Python.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[DrgnDancer]

As people have been trying (with varying degrees of clarity) to explain, the value of knowing C is not knowing C. It's in understanding how C relates to the theoretical underlying concepts of Computer Science. C is, in it's pure form, a VERY low level language, that can easily be used to demonstrate underlying Computer Science concepts. Start stacking layers of libraries on top, and C is no more or less abstract than any other language (well still a little more really). If you deliberately avoid using the high level libraries though, you can use C to teach about memory addressing (pointers), networking (without high level libraries, C can be used to work directly with sockets), operating systems (whee, semaphores!), all kinds of stuff. It's really close to the metal, and with it's fancier features stripped out it's metaphors nearly precisely overlap with the metaphors of the machine beneath it.

Learning C for programmers is a lot like learning Physics for Electrical Engineers. Sure, most of the time they can rely on established formulas to do their jobs. Most of the time an understanding of the underlying principles of electricity is almost an afterthought. Sometimes though, they find they have a need to know the why as well as the how; then they're glad they had to take Physics in school.

Pascal can also serve this purpose, but C has sort of a dual benefit. If you learn the underlying basics with Pascal, you learned theory. If you learn the underlying basics with C, you learned theory, plus a language that you may get a chance to use sometime. C is less common that it used to be in real world programming, but it's still infinitely more common than Pascal, and its basic syntax survives in C++, C#, Objective C, etc.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[Dragonslicer]

There's no denying it, C is the basis of everything in computing.

That's funny, when I was getting my computer science degree, we learned that assembly and/or machine code is the basis of all programming. If you ask a computer science professor, they'll probably tell you that mathematics is the basis of everything in computing. If you ask a computer engineering professor, they might tell you that transistors or logic gates are the basis of everything in computing. If you ask an electrical engineering professor, they might tell you that circuits are the basis of everything in computing (or they might tell you that they don't care and to go away). If you ask a physics professor, they could come up with almost anything to tell you is the basis of everything in computing.

Personally, I think it's just turtles all the way down.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[DarthVain]

In many cases Managers don't really get it either, and many times they are the ones doing the hiring.

People make fun of the "Required X years of Y programming language" yet Y hasn't been around for X years yet. However it is sadly true, at least in a relative way.

I find myself not bothering to even apply for some jobs because of all the silly requirements they ask for. I graduated Computer Science back in 2000, so the languages I learned in University were stuff like Pascal, Cobol, C, VB, Assembly, etc... All the "newer" languages I either have no experience of very little. I have dabbled in Java and a few others, but its not like its a big part of my current job (which is more DBA focused).

So either you are coming from school with the newer languages, and thus lack the experience needed, or you do it as part of your current job, in which case unless you are unhappy, or not getting paid as much, why bother. I guess if you had a job and lost it quite recently it might work, but that's about it. The other thing is considering what some of these jobs pay. I look at the requirements, and I am thinking, IF I had those requirements what the hell would I work for you at 60k, when I could easily make more elsewhere (or even doing other things with less qualifications). The other thing I hate is when they require experience in software that costs thousands of dollars to obtain, and is not commonly taught anywhere. The only way to get the software or the training is on the job, which basically makes it impossible to break into. That is to say I basically need to be doing that job right now in order to even apply for it.

Trying to explain to HR or some managers that you have a background in programing, and that picking up a new language isn't that big a deal just doesn't fly. You are not considered, and you do not get an interview. I know one of my university friends that currently still works in the business successfully, used to just lie on his application and figure it out once he got the job (Perl, and Python he did that way). Anyway, that's all that these HR and managers are promoting, is to lie so you can get the job, not exactly the best way to go about it.

Anyway I have just recently been looking at re-evaluating my position and looking at new opportunities and these are some of the frustrations I have felt.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something

[BitZtream]

Nor would anyone call him a mechanic, they'd call him a JiffyLube employee.

A lack of understanding of how computers work makes you a person who writes code, not a programmer.

My 88 year old father can write code to do some minor things, that doesn't make him a programmer, that makes him a guy who speaks a minor amount of VB but in general has no clue what he's saying.

My guess would be you're a guy who writes code, not a programmer.

C is key

[nailchipper]

What a shame. C is an important foundation.

Re:C is key

[16Chapel]

Quite. And VB is a horrible abomination.

In all seriousness, if you learn a C-based language it gives you a huge headstart towards learning the other C-based languages, and there are far more of those out there than Basic-type languages.

Re:C is key

[Mr. Freeman]

I'm not a CS major, I'm a mechanical engineering major and I just wanted to learn how to program as a hobby. I found it a lot easier to learn C than anything else I tried.

I'm not going to pretend to know how to program very well but I thought that because C didn't do very much for you that it gave a better foundation for learning other languages. I did learn a bit of python, but it was easier after learning C because you know what's going on "behind the scenes" so to speak.

For example, I had this weird ass problem in python where, for some reason, it was treating an integer value as a string. In C you have to specify variable types when you declare them. Because I knew about different variable types I knew that I had to look up how to explicitly declare variables as certain types in python. In C, you have to learn things like variable types, casting, pointers, etc. just to make a program that does anything at all. Languages like python are taught such that you completely gloss over these subjects and just assume that the computer magically knows what you're trying to tell it to do. When you run into a problem you can't fix it because you don't know what's actually going on.

I suggest that introductory programming classes use C rather than other things. The counter argument I generally get is "We want the students to make a program that actually does something so that they can write some programs after only a couple lectures". This loosely translates to "we want to entertain the students rather than teach them."

Although perhaps there's a middle ground. For non-CS majors, teach a language like python. Python allows for quick programs that, while not amazingly efficient, don't really need to be. For example, formatting a file with a shitload of data from a strain gauge. This might have to be done a total of, say, two times and thus efficiency really isn't an issue. Furthermore, non-CS majors (like mechanical and electrical engineers) don't have to understand the very basics of programming, they don't have much relevance to their field.
For CS majors, start off with languages like C because their job is to understand the very very basics.

So what?

[jawtheshark]

What's the big deal? One programming language is like the other, at least within the same paradigm. If you can program in Pascal, you can program in C. If you can't you learned a syntax and not "how to program". Basically, when I was a computer science student, we got one language taught for the concepts and the rest was just "swim or sink". That's the way it should be. I really have a problem with programmers who have problems switching from their preferred-language to another because it's unfamiliar. Well, no, it's not... It's the damned same thing with diverging syntax.

Basically, the premise of the Exam Board is quite right: the goal of programming is to have problem solving skills. Whatever language conveys that is completely uninteresting to me.

Oh, and just for the record: programming is just a small part of the computer science curriculum... or at least it should be.

Re:So what?

[Anzya]

That might be the case but your chances of getting hired is greater if you have C on you resume than pascal.
If they wanted a language that is simple to learn they could have chosen python instead. It's just as easy as pascal but has the benefit that it is actually used in the industry.

Re:So what?

[Antiocheian]

If you can program in Pascal, you can program in C

But if you can program in C you are wasting your time with Pascal.

Re:So what?

[Matthew Dunn]

What's the big deal? One programming language is like the other, at least within the same paradigm. If you can program in Pascal, you can program in C. If you can't you learned a syntax and not "how to program". Basically, when I was a computer science student, we got one language taught for the concepts and the rest was just "swim or sink". That's the way it should be. I really have a problem with programmers who have problems switching from their preferred-language to another because it's unfamiliar. Well, no, it's not... It's the damned same thing with diverging syntax.

Basically, the premise of the Exam Board is quite right: the goal of programming is to have problem solving skills. Whatever language conveys that is completely uninteresting to me.

Oh, and just for the record: programming is just a small part of the computer science curriculum... or at least it should be.

There's a lot more that goes along with a language Sure, if you know how to code OO, use iterators, understand switch statements and other language-related elements you can change languages and write an algorithm or two But Do I know best practice for everything? If I'm a c# programmer. Do I know important differences between Ruby 1.7, 1.8. 1.9? Do I know what the best inversion of control framework is? Or what the best ORM to use is? Am I familiar with how to use it? If I'm a Ruby developer am I aware that in a .NET language if I add two strings together in c# "Hello" + "World" It constructs a new immutable string. But if I do String.Format("{0}{1}","Hello","World" it is much faster and uses less memory? Will I know all the proper coding conventions, casing, tabbing, indenting styles. There are hundreds if not thousands of useful pieces of language, compiler, and environment specific knowledge which is useful and can be pretty obvious if you do not have it. I've been playing with c#, ruby, gcc. For around ten years commercially and I still need to invest significant re-education if I swap from say ruby to gcc or ruby to c# after a year.. There is a reason that people tend to stick with one or two primary languages.

Re:So what?

[multipartmixed]

> in a .NET language if I add two strings together in c# "Hello" + "World" It constructs
> a new immutable string. But if I do String.Format("{0}{1}","Hello","World" it is much
> faster and uses less memory

REALLY?

JavaScript engines -- with the exception of the one shipping with IE prior to version 9 -- have been cheating on this for performance reasons for a decade. It's a very important performance optimization, because of the html += "" idiom that is so prevalent on the web.

A similar idiom to String.Format exists in javaScript as well: string = [ "Hello", "World" ].join();

I think the lesson here is one of:
a) .NET languages suck, or
b) Premature optimization is the root of all evil

Maybe both :p

Oh yea. Teach them non mainstream stuff

[unity100]

to teach them hypothetical skills in watered down, obscure platforms so they can curse you for the rest of their lives when they start working in the industry.

i was taught fortran and pascal. i dont remember shit, and i dont think i gained much from them.

programming can be taught with any language. problem solving can be taught with any language. it is better to teach these using a language they WILL use when they actually get into industry, than with stuff they may rarely come up against.

uk was going down the drain for some years. i see this as another absurd jacobinism.

Re:Oh yea. Teach them non mainstream stuff

[RegularFry]

Alternatively, if the first thing they learn is that they *will* have to learn new languages, and that they can't rely on a single skill-set to carry them through their career, that's got to be a good thing.

Re:Oh yea. Teach them non mainstream stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer Scientist != Code Monkey

Sounds like you are the latter.

Re:Oh yea. Teach them non mainstream stuff

[unity100]

yea. and we need bazillions of computer 'scientists' in the industry, as can be seen from the hirings ............. not.

Visual Basic?

[tagno25]

Why are they accepting Visual Basic 6, but not C++, Ruby, or even LISP?

University...

[unts]

This is why we can't really use sixth-form qualifications in this area as an indicator of a candidate's ability to program - we have to assume they know nothing, and look to Maths & Science qualifications for indication of their skills.

I learnt Pascal and VB6 back when I was at sixth form. Then I went to uni, was taught C and thought to myself "why didn't they teach us this!? I know NOTHING".

Yes, and no

[Mathinker]

When I took the introductory course to computer programming in college, we actually were exposed to other programming paradigms than the standard industry ones. It included Prolog and SNOBOL, for example. Even though I would agree that neither of those languages has any practical application in industry today, I still think that it was an important part of my education to see these kinds of extremes (no, that doesn't mean I think that the brainfuck language should be taught to high school students --- anyway, because of its name, that would be impossible in the US).

That's a travesty

[jlebrech]

They should have dropped VB and PHP, maybe also drop delphi and introduce Ruby.

Atleast they still allow Java

[mwvdlee]

I'm not particularly fond of Java, but atleast hey have ONE alternative that is widely used in in the industry.

VB6 and delphi are dying languages as far as employment opportunities are concerned and Python isn't nearly as popular as PHP. I think VB.NET could get you a low-paying entry-level job though.

The common denominator of the allowed languages is that they do not allow low-level programming. C may not be the most common language in the industry, but it gives you a great foundation in understanding what actually happens inside all those object, libraries and frameworks.

This move is endumbening students ;)

Re:Atleast they still allow Java

[Rockoon]

C may not be the most common language in the industry, but it gives you a great foundation in understanding what actually happens inside all those object, libraries and frameworks.

You are just another guy that thinks pointers are special (that's C's only low level feature.) Don't kid yourself.

The last thing you need to know about is pointers if you want to understand the stuff you listed. What you need to concern yourself with is the algorithms and data structures employed, to that end references are as good as pointers.

I am telling you this as an assembly language programmer, so don't for a second think that I am brushing off pointers as not useful. I just know that they do NOT offer insight into the things you listed.

C is a terrible learning language

[anti-NAT]

No array bounding, no memory protection, casts all over the place without any errors, subtleties like '==' vs '='. C is a language for people who already know how to program (well), not those who're learning.

I like C a lot, however I'd hate to have learned to program in it. Fortunately I'd learned and had a strong foundation in Pascal first.

Re:C is a terrible learning language

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of C as a teaching language is that hardware does not bound arrays, it does not protect memory, all data is just bits and can be arbitrarily converted to anything (even if it makes no sense to do so).

Basically, if you grok C then you are an effective programmer but if you can only program in a "safe" language then you likely don't understand how anything works and it all seems 'like magic' and there's already enough pseudo-science in the world.

(Of course, whether you should choose to keep using C after you understand the concepts is a different question)

Re:C is a terrible learning language

[rmstar]

The point of C as a teaching language is that hardware does not bound arrays, it does not protect memory, all data is just bits and can be arbitrarily converted to anything (even if it makes no sense to do so).

Basically, if you grok C then you are an effective programmer but if you can only program in a "safe" language then you likely don't understand how anything works and it all seems 'like magic' and there's already enough pseudo-science in the world.

There is a fallacy in there. A safe language just tells you when you are doing crap, so that you learn not to do it or so that it doesn't shoot you in the foot. It doesn't make your errors go away, it just makes them explicit.

If you are good at programming in Pascal, it is not a big problem to learn C.

What is more, people who learn with C often develop a control-freak attitude that hinders them in the adoption of such sensible things as e.g. garbage collectors.

Re:C is a terrible learning language

[Fzz]

Unfortunately our experience teaching undergrad CS students Java first is that they build a mental model of what's going on that is completely abstracted away from the concept of memory. They then struggle to understand performance issues, and when we try to get them to learn C later, they struggle because they not only need to learn C's idiosyncracies but also unlearn their mental model, which is a lot harder.

We're actually about to switch back to teaching C in the first year (via long low-level projects for which it is well suited), as we've concluded the Java-first approach we've been using for at least ten years isn't working terribly well. It's nearly impossible for students to understand the advantages of object orientation when they haven't written complex code and haven't made the mistakes that lead to spaghetti code. So they use object orientation by rote-learning, which means they don't really understand when a lighter weight approach or a different language is appropriate and when it isn't. We'll still teach them Java and a range of other languages, but only when they've learned the reasons those languages help.

Having said that, I don't really care what they teach at A-level. A-level CS is pretty nearly worthless - any reasonable university CS department will prefer you didn't do it, and that you'd done more maths or science instead.

get this into your bloody eu heads

[perryizgr8]

if you can't write c, you are not a programmer.

Re:Dumbing Down

[jareth-0205]

Is this so surprising? There was a time when a University degree was supposed to be about learning concepts and theory, not specific skills. Skills were to be got as an apprentice at a company, companies used to train their new recruits. It seems that employers now just expect a University graduate to emerge with all the skills they need in their particular field and have to do no training. I can't help feeling extremely cynical when I hear companies complain about the quality of graduates when they've rescinded on their part of the bargain pretty completely.

Computer Science != Programming

[mattsday]

I think the common interpretation of Computer Science is extremely misleading. It's not about programming stuff, that's more of an IT application of computers. Instead, it's about understanding the science behind computers, for example to understand the mathematical principals of computing, operational effeciency and move it on as a tool for scientific endevour.

To this end, the choice of programming language really doesn't matter - it's a tool that the subject uses either as a proof of concept or a learning point. C is fairly good for this as it exposes a lot of the inner workings of a computer, whilst being high enough level to be more or less consistent across platforms at a university level. However, that doesn't mean that knocking up a quick proof of concept in python or perl is less valid - or even visual basic if it helps understand the science behind the problem.

In other words, I see no real worry here. If they stopped putting mathematics in a CS course or made it in to a programming degree I'd be concerned. If it's about using various tools for the job then I'm all for it. Hell, I wrote a pascal compiler in pascal as part of my degree - it wasn't about the programming language, it was about understanding the fundamentals of compiler design and implementation.

Re:Then why not C?

[Halo1]

If only one language is taught, then it should be C for anyone who expects to be a professional programmer, knowing C they can easily pick up any other procedural language. A programmer who doesn't know C is like a doctor who doesn't know anatomy.

I think you could say the same about Delphi-style Pascal. You can go as low level as in C there (and believe me, many people do, which is a pain if you develop a cross-platform Delphi-compatible compiler), and as a bonus you also learn an object model that's pretty much identical to Java's.

Re:Dumbing Down

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, we're talking about A level Computer Science. No-one is going to get a programming job in London after "graduating" from that unless they already know how to program.

Anyway, Computer Science is not a vocational subject. The importance is to use a language which allows you to focus on the bits you *want* to teach, rather than getting embroiled in a bunch of irrelevant pointer arithmetic or boilerplate class hierarchy bullshit.

There are then a bunch of companies who will employ you and train you how to program *in a team* on the basis that you're a smart computer scientist. And it's the *in a team* bit that requires Java or whatever.

But jobs that require knowledge of a specific source-control system are best avoided. Those kinds of jobs are looking for idiots who will barely pass muster, and they'll be dead-ends.

Re:Dumbing Down

[beh]

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you on your assessment:

Yes, you are right that most job posts now demand the skills you mention.

Yes, you are right that there is probably no Pascal/Delphi job post.

Like you, I don't agree with their offered choices.

But - you are forgetting a few things here:

a) There are no Delphi job posts in part because there is no real supply of delphi developers - C/C++, C#, Java, SQL developers are a dime a dozen by comparison. Companies won't start large scale Delphi developments, if they feel it will be difficult to scale up teams for it due to the lack of candidates.

b) It doesn't matter whether they're offering Java, C, OR Pascal, because they are teaching programming, not development. And that's my main problem with it - teaching some kid programming (as in the syntax of a language and very basic development skills) is no real help for them in the long term. A good developer can pick up new languages reasonably quickly - as long as the concepts behind the languages are well understood - after that, picking up a new language is primarily about the syntax and the libraries - still a potentially steep learning curve, but less so, than some kid who can program a very simple app in Pascal but has no clue about what else is involved - has no understanding of development patterns, of typing concepts, the differences between functional, OO, plain old structured programming languages, stack based systems (like machine code), ... Also, without an idea of those concepts, you may very quickly end up with a virtually unmaintainable piece of code - not there isn't enough of that out there already.

c) Starting them off on a 'teaching' language like Pascal has the big advantage that it's something they can get the hang of programming on first - and if they feel that's their thing and then go on to start on a development career, they will learn a language actually used out there at the same time when they get taught about other aspects of development that would be way too much for an A-level course.

Personally, the first languages I learnt were Basic (on a ZX Spectrum at home), and Logo (yes, the turtle graphics thing) at school (in ~85/86). I don't really want to picture the kind of code I would have written had I learnt C BEFORE learning about some more development constructs.

I would compare it a bit to learning 10-finger typing - if you have been using a computer before, you probably learnt to type reasonably quickly using your index fingers and the thumbs for the space bar. If you then start being taught proper 10-finger typing, you start of being at the top of the class in terms of speed in the beginning - but are more likely nearer the bottom of the course at the end of the training because you're still mainly falling back to your index fingers most of the time. Personally, it took me several years after a typing course at school before I could type 'blindly' using 10 fingers. It took me that long to 'unlearn' the 2-finger typing methods. By choosing a 'throw-away' language you're not really going to use in your later career, you provide the opportunity for a clean break into a new language once you begin understanding things like time complexity, memory management/requirements, algorithms, etc.

So, when it comes to teaching a programming language at school - I will gladly support teaching a 'teaching language' as opposed to a 'real world' language.

Re:Then why not C?

[seanellis]

Why not assembly language?

Build up from the very bottom. ARM assembly (disclaimer - I work for ARM) is ubiquitous and pretty close to an idealised assembler. Dev kits are available for cheap.

Then you build up through structured assembly, C-like languages (PASCAL?), and so on. Otherwise, it's like trying to build houses without understanding what bricks are.

That's the way I did it, except being as how I'm old and crusty the assembly language I started with was SC/MP, and we also had a load of BASIC thrown into the mix.

Well that would be part of the reason to learn it

[Sycraft-fu]

Part of being able to write good software is actually understanding how computers think. All these things like objects, and types and so on are all constructs for making things easier for people. They are how we think, not how the processor thinks. The problem is, if all you ever learn on is languages that hold your hand, you end up not being as good a programmer. I see types like that all the time come out of the university where I work, as Java is about the only thing they like to teach. They have little to no understanding of how a computer actually works and cannot deal with lower level languages.

Now I certainly wouldn't say C should be the only language you learn on, but it should be one of them. Learn how a computer works, and learn the power, and problems, that can be had from getting closer to the bare metal. Also then learn about higher level languages, and the advantages and disadvantages they provide. Basically, try and give students the understanding of how programming languages differ, and allow them to be able to appreciate that there are tradeoffs using different languages.

Having a program that gets too stuck in high level languages risks producing the myopic zealot type programmers that can only write in one language and write very bad code because they are used to having the language clean up after them.

Also, universities should endeavor to teach on what companies want. While a university degree is a theoretical degree, not practical training, that doesn't mean they have the right to be arrogant and refuse to try and offer theoretical training on real world tools. At the engineering department I work for, we try to do that. The software we use in classes is the software you'd use to do that sort of thing in the industry, when practical. That way you learn not only the electronics theory being taught, but you get practical experience with a tool.

Same shit for programming. Teach students on languages that companies want. Guess what? C++ (and even C) and C# and such are those languages. Pascal is not. I don't care if some old fossil of a professor loves Pascal. Suck it up, learn a new language. Your job is to keep up on shit. Any educator that themselves refuses to continually learn should be fired.

Teach students on a good cross section of languages that are currently useful. Show them the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of languages and programming, give them a good theoretical foundation in how this all works. While you do that, do it using tools that they will actually be asked to use when they go and get a job.

It's before college, not college itself

[Aceticon]

What they're talking about is A-level exams. These are taken by high-school graduates before college.

It's not that Comp Sci students will graduate without having learned those languages, it's that candidates for Comp Sci higher education will not be expected to know them.

As unfair as it seems to some old hands in IT, nowadays the industry rarelly hires people without college degrees for Programmer positions, so this does not mean we'll be swamped by a wave of "semi-literate" programmers.

Re:Then why not C?

[Halo1]

I think you could say the same about Delphi-style Pascal. You can go as low level as in C there

I'd say you are 99% right, but not quite. Pascal has a few abstractions that isolate you from the machine, like the set type for instance.

Yes, it has both high a low level abstractions. I meant that you can go as low level as in C. You indeed don't always have to though.

Also, AFAIK, standard Pascal does not have function pointers,

It does have them: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal/iso7185.html#6.6.3.4%20Procedural%20parameters

although I believe many versions, including Delphi, have implemented their non-standard extensions for this.

Delphi did introduce a lot of non-standard extensions to Pascal (and in fact, the way it implemented support for function pointers is different form the ANSI ISO way). Nowadays, Delphi-style Pascal is however one of the most popular variants around and sort of has evolved into a de facto standard.

I learned Pascal in the early 1980s, when the computer I had was an IBM PC with a 4.77 MHz CPU. I did a lot of programming in Turbo Pascal version 3, but I ended learning C because there were some operations I couldn't do with Turbo Pascal. After I learned C, I never felt the need to use Pascal anymore.

I also learned Pascal first, though it was in the 90's. I now also know both Pascal and C, but still prefer Pascal. Keep in mind that Delphi-style/Object Pascal is more than C. It's more like C with the addition of Java-style OOP.

Re:Dumbing Down

[TheRaven64]

There are two issues here. One is universities not teaching things. The other is students not learning them. I agree that a computer science course shouldn't be teaching things like source control or the details of a specific programming language, but that doesn't mean that the students shouldn't be learning them. If you're doing a degree in a particular field then you should be interested in it, and you should be motivated to learn more outside of the course. Universities aren't schools. They aren't meant to teach, they're meant to provide opportunities for learning. When I was an undergraduate, some of these came from my course, others came from the computer society.

The course gave me a solid theoretical foundation, the computer society gave me some practical experiences. I learned how to admin a network of Linux machines, practiced programming in C and C++, learned how to use PHP (thankfully, I don't need to do that anymore) and a variety of other things via the computer society and other non-course-related projects.

Re:Then why not C?

[Opportunist]

You want to frustrate our new students this early? :)

I hold that doctor and anatomy comparison and raise a language comparison. You want to teach kids a new language by telling them the grammar rules while not giving them any encouragement by giving them a way to communicate in it.

You start teaching programming by rote learning. Seriously. Yes, yes, it's all wrong and it teaches you so many horribly wrong ideas, but that's where you start. There is a reason why many schools in the past taught LOGO as a first language to school kids. Because that gives you immediate feedback while requiring very little knowledge of the language itself.

You have to understand, they know nothing at all about programming. That's already where many teachers fail to teach properly, especially if they are good programmers. The idea of procedural programming and that a program is executed step by step is already alien to them, something that probably you and me grasped immediately. VB, as condemnable as it may be, at least teaches this concept, and branches, loops and so on too. All that is HORRIBLY hard to grasp for many kids starting into programming. Especially if they don't have the mindset.

I know it might sound odd, but I noticed that there are people who instantly catch on, who immediately understand the way a procedural language works, and people who have an incredibly hard time wrapping their mind around it. We don't just all start on equal ground here. And for you and me, teaching ASM is probably the sensible way to start, simply because we do understand those concepts for some reason. Call it talent, call it whatever you like, but it's anything but the norm.

So starting with some high level language (JAVA would be great, IMO, simply because it prepares you for the C syntax. Yes, yes, a good programmer knows how to program, not his rotes, but these ARE NOT good programmers, they're beginners!) is quite sensible. Let them get used to the idea of procedural programming before you toss overhead at them.

Bad, bad move

[Lisandro]

The exclusion of PHP is debatible (is not really different from a gazillon other interpreted languages out there), but the exclusion of C, is, IMHO, a gross mistake. C teaches basic low-level concepts that other languages, outside assembler perhaps, dont even touch - memory management being the principal. Nowadays every developer accustomed to Java seems to think garbage collection is the end of all memory handling issues...

Re:Plus, Delphi is an awesome teaching environment

[BitZtream]

Just for your future reference, while technically you can call what you did 'programming'.

By any acceptable definition of the word what you did was show how to use the Delphi gui, not teach programming, and that is a BIG distinction. You haven't taught anything but how to point and click.