Follow up to "Ask HN: What programming languages are used in CS courses these days?"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7950439<p>From the answers to that question, you can see that the core computer science curriculum has barely changed in 30 years. As for programming languages used, Java has been the mainstream for over 10 years now and C/C++ is still hanging tough after breaking into higher education 20+ years ago.<p>In '96-'99, the core courses I took (Data Structures, OS, Compilers, Computer Arch, etc.) served me well and I was glad to get a mix of Java and C/C++ at the time. If I was starting my undergrad today however, I'd be a little disappointed to know not much had changed since then. I'd argue a good bit of the curriculum is nearing its shelf life or, to carry on the spoiling food metaphor, at least needs to be put in the freezer for preservation.<p>Got me thinking about how things could evolve. Some examples:<p>Data Structures => Javascript or some other web-able Ruby that 70% of folks will actually get a job in. The concepts are what matter in DS, but while we are at it how about a more relevant language choice? Points to those school already using Python for this!<p>Operating Systems => Teach it in C still, keep it hardcore low level, and probably make it an elective for the minority of folks who want to do performance OS work.<p>"Browser/Internet as the OS" => Replace the traditional core OS class; class project would basically be this: http://runtimejs.org/<p>Databases => Replace with a new core course for "Data Science"; make Databases an elective.<p>So, how would you evolve modern computer science curriculum if you could?
You recommend teaching Javascript or Ruby in an undergraduate Computer Science Data Structures course. Are you aware of the fact that Computer Science, as a major, is not "Learn programming"? It is learning the theory and science behind Computers, computing and programming. What you suggest is more applicable for CNIT or Computers, Networking, and Information Technology; A major where one would learn more how to apply the theories and concepts of programming. But even then, you're suggesting SCRIPTING languages for PROGRAMMING. The only thing a scripting language is good for in the education system is conveying concepts such as abstraction ( because that's practically all they are ). Java is a way better language for that.<p>I think instead of attempting to revamp the CS curriculum, we should work harder to portray CS for what it is, which is not "Study this and be a programmer for the rest of your life". People who come out of CS go on to do a wide array of things, programming is just a basic and necessary skill for learning and understanding computing that one picks it up. And knowing the theories and concepts really well makes good programmers, same as how knowing the fundamentals of Mathematics would produce someone who could be a good accountant or something similar.
I think you guys are not actually reading what I wrote - I'm all for the rigor, I'm all for the theory. There is just no reason to not make things more relevant and practical since you have to pick a language/focus/domain for any given class anyway - no matter how theoretically focused it is.<p>For the Data Structures comment, please see the second sentence that begins with "The concepts are what matter in DS...".
What I am saying is, how about a new language? It would be super cool to have to rectify Data Structures theory with the real world issues of something like Javascript.<p>For the other comment about keeping things static, you know there was a time all these course were taught in Assembly. So are you arguing we should have never even evolved past that?<p>Anyway, I was hoping more for fun/brainstorming/idea generation. How might I have worded it differently to get that instead of shallow objections?
I would say that it is a good thing that the core courses are static in time. It means the field is mature enough to support an undergraduate program at all. Physics and Chemistry majors spend most of their time at school catching up to the historic state of the art up to early 20th century. If they want to know the most up to date advances they have to either pursue a self directed continued education, or enroll in a graduate level program.<p>As a matter of fact, a rapidly changing curriculum would be at least a yellow flag. In the worst case, it's the pseudo sciences that go up and down, chasing the passing fade du-jour. This is more like a smell test than an objective indicator. The correlation is there, but it is not well understood. Not necessarily every rapidly changing curriculum is a pseudo-science, but a closer look is probably due.<p>That was probably the state of the art of Computer Sciences ~65 years ago. The Foundations were already known, but the field was still too much of a virgin land to be settled by undergraduates. It was rather a diverse group of mathematicians, scientists and (mechanical and electric) engineers who were just exploring the territory. It eventually coalesced into what we have today, so it is a good thing that the pace has slowed down by now.
From <a href="http://www.meetup.com/Oslo-pm/events/172566472/" rel="nofollow">http://www.meetup.com/Oslo-pm/events/172566472/</a><p>"Perl 6: A Programming Language for Computer Scientists (And Other Crazy People)<p>A good Computer Science syllabus will cover everything from bit manipulation to set theory, from Boolean algebra to concurrency, from parsing grammars to graph traversal, from two's-complement arithmetic to higher-order functions, from sorting algorithms to multiple dispatch, from macros to closures. ...<p>To teach all these concepts and techniques it is usually necessary to resort to a wide range of different programming languages ... Lisp and Fortran ... Forth ... Smalltalk, C, Scheme ... C++, Perl, Occam ... Haskell, Java, JavaScript ... C#, Scala, Clojure.<p>This diversity ... encourages an unfortunate ... internal compartmentalization of concepts and approaches.<p>Perl 6 ... aims to provide all of the major features of all of the major languages from all three dominant paradigms.<p>... we stole the best features from 20 different languages, and then spent a decade working out how to put them together in a way that is clean, efficient, powerful, and still usable by actual human beings. And Perl 6 was the result."
It sounds like all your changes would be more appropriate for a vocational school software engineering program.<p>For instance your data structures remark. A data structures course would be fairly odd to teach in something like python where you have no pointers or low level control of memory like C or C++. If all you care about is high level structures then that's not really in the spirit of a CS degree data structures course in my opinion.
It seems to me that you are making the same general argument that Steve McConnell (of Code Complete fame) made in his 2003 book "Professional Software Development", namely that CS programs serve a different purpose and clientele than a Software Development or Software Engineering program would serve. So, rather than evolving a CS curriculum, another option would be to introduce parallel software engineering programs. Honestly though, for a professional developer who sees this as a career, I'd argue you are better off doing CS at the undergrad level, then pursuing something like a Masters in Software Engineering. CS at the undergrad level gives everyone the foundation they need, regardless of what the pursue professionally after that.
I'd love to get y'all's feedback on a related question: did you receive any training in your CS degrees that had anything to do with testing, dev-ops, continuous deployment, and the like? I teach in an MIS department and have started to include some of these concepts in the capstone course, which was originally more of a project management course.<p>From talking to the employers who hire our students (and the CS department's students), I got the impression that CS students are taking four years of programming classes but are never taught how to write tests or even to use version control. Is that the way it is? Is that the way it should be?
I would suggest more bridges to other programs. One could argue this exists ad-hoc with double majors, and minors, and similar, but it could be done better with more proactive thought and combined classes.<p>Some areas that could be combined: CS & Linguistics, CS & Physics, CS & Math, CS & Biology, CS & Chemistry, CS & Philosophy, CS & Psychology, CS & Business, CS & Geography...<p>These are done a little here and there, but I would like CS to cross the disciplinary divide more. Technology is eating everything, so why not teach it that way?
The main disagreement I have is the assertion that the majority of jobs (at a nationwide level) is for web based languages. While it is trending in that direction from what I see the majority of jobs are still Java and C++ with a bit of C thrown in. And while there may come a time when Javascript overtakes Java and C++, I don't think we are there yet, at least not nationally.
From my own personal experience as a Computer Science graduate, I feel that an ideal Computer Science curriculum would be as theoretical as possible, but would promote outside work in industry for those looking to work in industry.<p>I interned quite heavily during my uni days, and I learned more about programming in the months I spent working than I did in an entire year on my course.