 Computing Curricula 2001
started 2/5/2001; 11:56:42 PM - last post 2/8/2001; 12:06:52 AM
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Computing Curricula 2001 
2/5/2001; 11:56:42 PM (reads: 1383, responses: 9)
|
|
| Computing Curricula 2001 |
|
This is interesting in its own right. Body of knowldege classifications are always interesting as they are, in essence, an attempt to classify and thus generalize. The programiming languages body of knowledge is here.
Matthias Felleisen found that the report implies that programming languages is a near-irrelevant topic. While the report mentions many programming language ideas and admits that a programming language is a programmer's main interface to the computer, the number of core hours assigned to the topic is minimal, and is petitioning for changes.
Posted to general by Ehud Lamm on 2/5/01; 11:57:24 PM
|
|
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/6/2001; 4:22:46 AM (reads: 1426, responses: 0)
|
|
|
There's an interesting book on program design (not really about programming languages, so I don't think it deserves front page status) on the home pages in the post above.
|
|
John Lawter - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/6/2001; 7:21:53 AM (reads: 1418, responses: 0)
|
|
|
It's pretty interesting that Programming Languages merit 6 hours, but "Intelligent Systems" merit 10 hours. And for some reason Software Engineering gets almost twice as much time as Operating Systems.
I agree with Felleisen about the need for core hours to be increased; I would go further and say that many of these things need to be rethought. It seems to me from looking at some of these areas that the focus of the curriculum is not necessarily training computer scientists but training computer programmers (notice the emphasis on Software Engineering, Net-Centric Computing and Information Management) and maybe this needs to be addressed somehow.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/6/2001; 7:59:08 AM (reads: 1412, responses: 0)
|
|
|
It seems someone was on drugs... Automata theory (thats DFAs and NFAs, not anything fancy) an elective? etc. etc.
But still I think it fair to point out that the idea is that people would not only learn the core, and the core is a minimum. It is not convincing, but you may want to defer judgment until you read the introductory comments of the document. They explain some.
I still think it is badly designed, so I guess they are not that convincing.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/6/2001; 11:12:57 AM (reads: 1404, responses: 0)
|
|
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/7/2001; 12:47:31 AM (reads: 1408, responses: 1)
|
|
|
the curriculum is not necessarily training computer scientists but training computer programmers
Yep - that's just what it looks like to me (which makes sense, if the political climate in the US is anything like in the UK).
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/7/2001; 3:38:29 AM (reads: 1551, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Alas, the ay it is designed it will train bad programmers...
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/7/2001; 12:51:30 PM (reads: 1392, responses: 0)
|
|
|
...bad programmers
but ones less likely to ask difficult questions, maybe :-)
|
|
Chris Rathman - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/7/2001; 5:50:34 PM (reads: 1387, responses: 0)
|
|
|
My only thought is that there are different types of disciplines involved. There's obviously Data Processing, Software Engineering, and Computer Science. Each of these kinds of degrees should have a different emphasis with a distinct curriculum.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Computing Curricula 2001
2/8/2001; 12:06:52 AM (reads: 1367, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Right! I think this hits the nail right on the head. The program disucssed is truly not a CS degree...
|
|
|
|