Re: Is relational theory irrelevant?

"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne_at_acm.org> wrote in message news:bpdip2$1no980$1_at_ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when "Bob Badour"
<bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote:
> > I disagree that it is really a lack of education, per se. The real
problem
> > is misguided education. Computer science educations that focus on
procedural
> > languages are stuck in the 1960's and in the days of assembly language.
> > Frankly, I think it is criminal the way academia damages the minds of
our
> > youth.
>
> I didn't think they taught assembly language anymore, but even if they
> do, that doesn't strike me as a problem. Assembler is part of what
> underlies things, so it seems quite appropriate to teach it as One Of
> The Abstractions.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that procedural languages should be the focus of computer science.

> The problem comes when they fail to teach about important
> abstractions.

Exactly. I think we agree on this point.

> To my mind, the _true_ problem is that universities have gotten away
> from "universal" sorts of knowledge, and have instead decided that
> they have to become glorified 'business schools,' and instead of
> teaching about abstractions, get TOO concretely into the details of
> Java and C++.

Again, I agree. Educators fail to teach the skills that would enable students to use their minds and their judgement effectively.

> When students imagine that the features of Java and C++ are the whole
> of "Computer Science," THAT is the 'criminal damage' to the minds of
> youth.
> --
> select 'aa454' || '_at_' || 'freenet.carleton.ca';
> http://cbbrowne.com/info/emacs.html
> I just got skylights put in my place. The people who live above me are
> furious.
Received on Tue Nov 18 2003 - 22:32:17 CET