Re: Ada9x Transition Plan (443 lines) ftp-ed from AJPO

[jncs@uno.edu]

In article <2926@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>In article <jls.669955177@rutabaga> jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
>>>      3.2  FREE EDUCATIONAL ADA 9X COMPILATION SYSTEM
>>>
>>>      Since this system is for educational purposes only,  and 
>>>      there is no intent to compete with industry but rather to  stimu-
>>>      late the market, it may be that certain features of the  language 
>>>      are  not  supported;
>>
>>Bad idea, bad precedent. One of the great selling points of Ada over
>>any other language is that it IS a standard. Introducing dialects,
>>ESPECIALLY in an educational system, is regressive. Either teach Ada
>>or don't teach Ada, but by all means don't teach "sort-of" Ada.
>>
>I couldn't agree more with your basic idea. However, industry folks should
>realize that in the university world we don't teach languages, we teach 
>concepts and the languages are just means to the end (this is especially

I could not agree more with MF. In university environments a language is just
that, a tool. We do not tailor curricula around specific languages. We do it 
around concepts, and methodologies which we see have strong transfer value
to specific tasks undergraduates will end up doing in the "real world". 

Pascal was a great expirience from which we learned much  (both educators and
practitioners). If we are denied a subset of a language, we are denied the
oportunity we could have to experiment with new concepts and methodologies,
which we eventually we must face when the whole language is completely 
hammered out, released and compilers become available. Let's recall that we 
can find a subset of Ada similar to Pascal. Besides the language, and the
comercially strong compilers, we NEED to develop the appropriate methodology
and teaching tools for it; thus the sooner you give me a flavor of the language,
the sooner I get to think of appropriate methodologies both for programming in
it in particular and for developing systems in general. 

>I am definitely opposed to a dialect being supported in this educational
>system. On the other hand, while everyone sat around and waited, we
>at GW and elsewhere taught _hundreds_ of students Ada, from 1983 on,
>using TeleSoft's interim system, which (you may recall) did not support 
>generics or task types (though it supported named tasks decently well), 
>and surely didn't support chapter 13.

I rather do without chapter 13, than with a language that allows me to teach
development of systems via the modelling and implementation of ADT's. 
Coming back to Pascal, this department at Univ of New Orleans taught Pascal in
spring of 74 using a poorly implemented interpreter imported from Europe. I'm
sure it must have felt great, in spite of the quality of the interpreter, as
since then and until 1984, Pascal was taught to cs students. I must add that
at that date we adopted Ada and used the Telesoft version mentioned above. 


>AJPO: get something out there _quickly_ and don't be afraid to let us have
>premature stuff to play with. We're smart guys and we can work around the
>deficiencies. And for Heaven's sake, let us in the universities have
>the source code, RIGHT FROM THE START, so we can "add value." 

ditto.

With respect to the industry perception of what we do in the classrooms, it has
always been a source of much grief. They want me to teach my students COBOL and
as much as I and the students can endure. CS students in my school are not
required to take COBOL; also, we only teach on course of COBOL. In several 
occassions, students have told me that they were passed by recruiters for 
other students from others schools in town because they had 2 or more courses
in COBOL!!! May I say more?

Jaime Nino