(no title)
chrisaycock | 1 year ago
But that complaint can be made about any language! "This dynamically typed language won't allow students to understand type safety." "This high-level language won't allow students to learn pointers and systems programming." Etc.
I believe that an intro course should get students coding since the first major hurdle is learning how to construct any kind of program at all. The switch to a more "employable" language isn't going to make education worse.
ycombinatrix|1 year ago
>Racket was chosen because it has “teaching languages” that can gradually introduce features as students are taught the relevant design principles.
So no, that complaint can't be made about any language.
SolarNet|1 year ago
> I believe that an intro course should get students coding since the first major hurdle is learning how to construct any kind of program at all. The switch to a more "employable" language isn't going to make education worse.
None of this is the issue at hand. The switch to python is because industry uses it. The article correctly makes the point that racket was intentionally designed to get students coding as easily and quickly as possible. It has multiple steps of teaching languages for exactly that purpose, introducing concepts in ways that let students grapple with them one at a time in an interactive environment.
Meanwhile in python complex topics like duck typing, object oriented methods, exceptions, the distinction between iterables and lists, how to use a command line/terminal or how to configure an IDE, and so on must be covered before people can start writing code for the exercises. Racket is streamlined for beginners.
lazyasciiart|1 year ago
No, they dont have to be at all. You might as well suggest you need to learn the JVM before writing a line of Java.
wombatpm|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet|1 year ago
fn-mote|1 year ago
Also, see SolarNet's comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42677918
000ooo000|1 year ago