from hell to paradise ; ; ; was: [plt-scheme] Prereqs for robotic programming

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Marco Morazan <morazanm at gmail.com> wrote:

> > the plumbings.  Wouldn't you want to hear your student say "why don't you
> > teach me scheme, I want to work at Google (or another hip company) and
> they
> > standardize on it"?
>
> No, I do not. I want to hear my students say teach me how to program
> reliable and easy to maintain software. Period. I am not interested in
> teaching them Scheme, C++, Java, or Perl. I want them to know how to
> reason about problems and how to design programs to solve problems.
> The syntax used is irrelevant. Whatever syntax I teach them today is
> likely to be outdated by the time they graduate. The problem solving
> skills and the design principles will not.


Fair enough.  I might be reaching there guessing what you'd like to hear,
but hopefully it's clear that my point wasn't about a particular syntax (but
isn't scheme syntax-less? :P).

Meanwhile, FP adoption remains a real problem.

Cheers,
yc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20090217/d2faf9cf/attachment.html>