[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: first programming languages, and second ones too
I don't want to get too far away from the purpose of this newsgroup, but
I wouldn't recommend C as an immediate successor to Scheme in a
SICP-based course. The major reasons are the convoluted syntax and the
lack of reasonable response to run-time errors. I've taught courses
using C at the second and third year levels for years, and I know for a
fact that students find both of these almost insuperable.
I am, however, in agreement with gjc that the right way to teach these
languages is by having the students work on a Scheme evaluator. That's
certainly what we had in mind.
As for going directly to assembler: in our course, we won't be using the
approach SICP uses to assembly language. We're going to introduce a
fairly conventional hypothetical machine, and then explain its behaviour
on the register transfer level. This seems more appropriate than the
SIPC one in a course which is aimed at non-electrical engineers.
\ Vincent Manis <firstname.lastname@example.org> "There is no law that vulgarity and
\ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist."
/\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge
/ \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394