Requirements for a first year object-oriented teaching language

Kölling, Michael; KochBett,; RosenbergJohn,

doi:10.1145/199691.199770

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is the argument used by Wirth (1993), Kölling et al (1995), and all the other inventors of languages designed for classroom use, and is exemplified by proponents of the various 'pure' teaching languages. The argument quickly becomes one that urges use of a language not common in industry.…”

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The argument quickly becomes one that urges use of a language not common in industry. Some urge development of a new teaching language to meet the needs for teaching, one that does not have to be a real world production language and thus can avoid the compromises in conceptual cleanness for efficiency that cause many of the problems with existing languages (Kölling et al, 1995).…”

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The History of Computer Language Selection

Parker

Davey

2012

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This examines the history of computer language choice for both industry use and university programming courses. The study considers events in two developed countries and reveals themes that may be common in the language selection history of other developed nations. History shows a set of recurring problems for those involved in choosing languages. This study shows that those involved in the selection process can be informed by history when making those decisions.

show abstract

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

The History of Computer Language Selection

Parker

Davey

2012

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Development environments range from simple text editors and command-line compilers to fully interactive and integrated development environments (IDE) (McIver, 2002). An IDE should be easy to use so that the students can concentrate on learning programming concepts rather than the environment itself (Kölling, Koch, & Rosenberg, 1995). There is evidence that well-designed programming environments assist students in learning to program (Eisenstadt & Lewis, 1992).…”

Section: Development Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first considers whether the language offers features like strong type checking and array bounds checking, while avoiding features like variants and pointers in unsafe mode. Kölling et al (1995) note that a language should have a safe, statically checked type system, no explicit pointers, and no undetectable uninitialized variables. The second factor, which is closely related to the first, is the inclusion of securityrelated features like Java's sandbox, which is intended to limit the memory addresses that a Java program can access.…”

Section: Coding Safety and Support For Secure Codementioning

confidence: 99%

A Formal Process for Programming Language Evaluation for Introductory Courses

Parker

Chao

Ottaway³

et al. 2006

InSITE Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryThe selection of a programming language for introductory courses has long been an informal process involving faculty evaluation, discussion, and consensus. As the number of faculty, students, and language options grows, this process becomes increasingly unwieldy. As it stands, the process currently lacks structure and replicability. Establishing a structured approach to the selection of a programming language would enable a more thorough evaluation of the available options and a more easily supportable selection. Developing and documenting an instrument and a methodology for language selection will allow the process to be more easily repeated in the future.The objectives of this research are to: i) identify criteria for faculty use when selecting a computer programming language for an introductory course in computer programming; ii) develop an instrument that facilitates the assignment of weights to each of those selection criterion to determine their relative importance in the selection process, and; iii) allow various computer programming languages to be scored according to those selection criteria. A set of criteria for the selection of a programming language for introductory courses proposed in a previous paper is briefly reviewed here, with each criterion accompanied with a definition and justification. Readers are referred to the source paper for a complete discussion and literature review.In order to test the validity of these criteria a pilot study was conducted. That study revealed that the number of languages being evaluated by a respondent should be limited, and better guidance in the form of criterion explanation and rating guidance are necessary. Further, some users found the number of criteria daunting, and some of those criteria overlap, causing a language to be evaluated multiple times on what should be a single criterion. At the same a few additional criteria were proposed by study participants.As a result of these findings, instrument refinements were made. Evaluators are now restricted to assessing only languages with which they are quite familiar in order to address not only the issue of quantity, but also inadequate familiarMaterial published as part of this journal, either on-line or in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute. Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is permissible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment of a fee. Contact Publisher@InformingScience.org to request redistribution permission. A Formal Language Selection Process 134ity. In addition, the selection criteria were analyzed and those with commonalities were grouped together, a...

show abstract

“…C++ is the most popular object-oriented language used to teach introductory programming, but it has plenty of critics. Some even argue that no existing object-oriented language (prior to Java, at least) is really suitable for beginners [6]. (This paper describes desirable characteristics for a beginner's objectoriented language.…”

Section: Object-orientedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The case for Java as a first language

King

1997

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Southeast Regional Conference on - ACM-SE 35

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Java could well be the answer to the problem of choosing an appropriate language for the first programming course. This paper looks at the pros and cons of teaching Java, concluding that Java appears to have outstanding prospects for computer science education in general and the first programming course in particular. In particular, the paper argues that the properties that make Java a suitable Internet language also make it excellent for classroom use.

show abstract

Requirements for a first year object-oriented teaching language

Abstract: The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Cited by 22 publications

References 12 publications

The History of Computer Language Selection

The History of Computer Language Selection

A Formal Process for Programming Language Evaluation for Introductory Courses

The case for Java as a first language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About