Eliminate Turing

[chrisbrown]

OK, so we all know Turing is a great instructional language, but let's face it: there are those who "get" computers, and those who don't. Those who do should have little trouble learning a practical language such as C++; those who don't won't find themselves in a situation where they need to write code. I desperately wish Turing was not my first programming language, since - just like English is my mother tongue - I cannot help but refer back to it as a reference. Had I learned a real language instead, I'm sure I would have a much better grasp of coding concepts than I have now. I realize the learning curve is steeper, but in the end, can anyone deny that it would be less efficient to introduce to students a language that they will actually use, as opposed to a functionally useless one? As I am not an educator, I may be missing something, but in my opinion, it simply makes more sense to introduce programming students to a language they can use in an environment beyond high school.

[Dan]

Well you probly will get your wish, holtsoft is out of buisness and there will be no more versions or updates to turing or RTP from them. They also will not be supporting RTP or Turing.

Becues of this it is likey that knowaglable high school computer science teachers will switch to free languages such as Python, Java, C++, C, Ruby and others. However Turing is still listed in the software libbrays for serveral school boards (if not all in ontraio) so it will probly take some time for this transition to take place but it has deftaly allready started.

Also be lucky you did not start with Q-Basics like some of us :p

[Zeroth]

I started in Python. So there.

[Tony]

methodoxx @ Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:57 pm wrote:

can anyone deny that it would be less efficient to introduce to students a language that they will actually use, as opposed to a functionally useless one?

Yes.

It's not like we are here to just learn the syntax to a bunch of different languages (and then not know what to do with it).

Turing has pointers. Turing supports recursion. It offers enough "real" features to keep a typical student busy well beyond the high school curriculum. Is there some concept you feel you could have understood better when shown an example in a different syntax? There might have been an argument about Object Oriented Programming, but I see that you've mentioned C++, so that can't be it...

[[Gandalf]]

methodoxx @ 2008-09-06, 10:57 pm wrote:

I desperately wish Turing was not my first programming language, since - just like English is my mother tongue - I cannot help but refer back to it as a reference. Had I learned a real language instead, I'm sure I would have a much better grasp of coding concepts than I have now.

The more you learn something, the better you can use it as a reference and relate back to it. I don't think there is any special case for the first language you learn, so I wouldn't worry about Turing "tainting" you for life.

[wtd]

It makes sense to introduce students for the first time to a programming language that conveys core concepts while generally getting out the way as much as possible.

UW uses Scheme for this. Scheme is not Java, or C++, or C#, or even Python which might have some relevance outside academia. Is this coincidence?

No. They do it because Scheme is minimal. You learn a few basic rules about the language and then it gets out of the way.

[andrew.]

I think Turing is a great language to start off in. If I started with C++ or even Java, I would've quit compsci. Most non-Turing languages are too hard for beginner's to grasp the basic programming concepts (especially object-oriented languages). However, I think your dream may be coming true because my friend who goes to Woburn was being taught C++ in his first year (grade 10) of compsci.

[wtd]

This is another problem: the idea that it's Turing or Java/C++ and there are no other considerations. Sure when you hold Turing up to those as an educational tool it looks fantastic.

How about Scheme? Or maybe one of the MLs? These have a long history of use in academia and have fantastic, mature curricula developed around them.

[Zeroth]

Here's a vote for Python. It can sincerely make all the difference.

[Dan]

I think introducting grade 10s to programming threw a functional programming langue is a horaible idea.

For beingiers you want somthing simple and inteintuive they can jump in to right away and not be worryed about syntax. Starting a progamming class by explaing what lambda calculus is a sure fire way to increse the drop out rate and lower enrolment in computer science.

Teaching scheme to univerity students is one thing but teaching it to grade 10s seems like a rather bad idea when you have options like Ruby and Python (witch supports functional programming with our forcing it).

Althought turing did have it's problems it provied a very easy way to program and allowed for students to jump right in to things they found intresting like graphics, animation and games with out the need to import complicated libaries or APIs. This allowed for teachers to keep students engeaned in learning programming where they might have other wise been scared off by the amount of work it would take to output graphics in other langues.

In my option an ideal langue for high school education needs to be simple and allow students to be able to take there ideas and make them reality with out having to worry about complex graphics libbaries and event hooks to get input. But at the same time be flexiable enought to learn the core computer science concepts with out geting tangled up in syntax.

[chrisbrown]

I think my biggest gripe would be that Turing only goes partway into the "advanced concepts" category. I remember cursing Holtsoft for its failure to include default parameter values, function overloading, and a bunch of other stuff that an ambitious high-schooler should be able to use without being forced to learn another language. I won't argue that Turing isn't (wasn't?) a useful teaching tool, but I feel that it simplified things a little too much.

[wtd]

Dan @ Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:40 am wrote:

I think introducting grade 10s to programming threw a functional programming langue is a horaible idea.

For beingiers you want somthing simple and inteintuive they can jump in to right away and not be worryed about syntax. Starting a progamming class by explaing what lambda calculus is a sure fire way to increse the drop out rate and lower enrolment in computer science.

Scheme, O'Caml, SML... none of these require students to learn about lambda calculus early on.

code:

(define foo 42)

code:

let foo = 42

code:

val foo = 42

None of these seem especially more complex than:

code:

var foo : int := 42

code:

(define (foo bar)   (+ bar 2))

code:

let foo bar =   bar + 2

code:

fun foo(bar) =   bar + 2

None seems especially more complex than:

code:

function foo (bar : int) : int   result bar + 2 end foo

code:

(define (foo bar)   (if bar       baz       wooble))

code:

let foo bar =   if bar then     baz   else     wooble

code:

fun foo(bar) =   if bar then     baz   else     wooble

Again, not especially more complex than:

code:

function foo (bar : boolean) : some_type   if bar then     result baz   else     result wooble   end if end foo

[Boiq]

I agree.

Turing can be okay in some aspects but all-in-all it is a pretty dull programming language.

[petree08]

In the last month of my grade 12 compsci class the teacher threw a bunch of langauges at us, (C++, Java, Basic and Prolog) Wih the exception of Prolog (it being an entirely differnent way of programing) i found the only problem with the turing to Functional language transtion was syntax. I'll admit C still gives me a bit of a head ache but all in all i didn't find it a terribly difficult switch.

as for turing being dull, i don't know about that, it can be as interesting as you want to push it to be,

it's not the code , it's the algorthym behind the code.

[wtd]

petree08 @ Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:45 pm wrote:

In the last month of my grade 12 compsci class the teacher threw a bunch of langauges at us, (C++, Java, Basic and Prolog) Wih the exception of Prolog (it being an entirely differnent way of programing) i found the only problem with the turing to Functional language transtion was syntax. I'll admit C still gives me a bit of a head ache but all in all i didn't find it a terribly difficult switch.

Ummm.... none of the languages you list there are functional programming languages.