Joel Spolsky's latest essay is The Perils of Java Schools. He explains in detail why he thinks teaching computer science with Java is a bad thing. It basically comes down to not learning about pointers or recursion. He laments the state of computer science education, and fears for the entire industry as a result.
At least Joel has the good sense to start the piece by making fun of himself for griping about "kids these days". He has his knickers in a twist for no good reason.
One of the things that caught my eye about the piece was that Joel attended Penn, and discusses a course there called CSE 121. As it happens, I also went to Penn. I suspect it was a couple of years earlier than Joel, but not many. I didn't take CSE 121. I wonder if it was offered, because it doesn't sound familiar, but looks like an interesting course.
So I never had the legendary Intro To The Theory Of Programming Languages Using Lisp course that so many people find so fascinating. But I took another course that is germane to the discussion, Intro To Assembly Language.
I don't think CS students today are being taught assembly language. Should they be? I don't know. Is it useful? Yes, at the very least for debugging. Working in C++, there have been many times when dropping into disassembly in the debugger was the only way to see what was really going on. I've had debugging sessions with engineers with recent Master's degrees from MIT where I started poking around in disassembly and registers, and as far as they were concerned, I might as well have been speaking in tongues.
(Side note about the Assembly Language course at Penn: we were taught PDP-11 assembly language, and did all our work in it. The final project was to write a 6502 emulator for the PDP-11. But Penn didn't have a PDP-11; all the projects were run on a PDP-11 emulator on a Univac mainframe! Needless to say, the 6502 programs we tested our emulators with ran very slowly!)
Assembly language can be very helpful, but if you're working in Java (or Python or Ruby or PHP or Perl), there isn't much call for it. So should it be taught? Hard to say. Understanding it will definitely give you a deeper understanding of what's really going on, and many areas of software engineering still require its use. But if students don't take a semester of assembly language, they can take a semester of something else instead, something that may be more helpful in the long run. UI design? Finance? There are lots of things I never learned in college that would be handy now.
Why does Joel pick out pointers and recursion as the two gatekeeper concepts? Because he found them difficult? As Tim Bray points out, Java is perfectly adept at recursion, and concurrency may be a more important and difficult concept to master in any case. The emphasis on recursion in Lisp languages is a bit over the top, and doesn't carry into other programming cultures. Why do people think it's so important for software engineering? Don't get me wrong: I love recursion when it's the right tool for the job, but that is just not that often to warrant Joel's focus on it as a fundamental concept.
While we're hunting around for tough concepts that separate the men from the boys, what about the one that got Joel and I into a tussle two years ago: Exceptions. He doesn't like them, bascially, because they confuse him. Is this any different than a Java guy not liking pointers? Yes, you can avoid exceptions and use status returns, but you can also try really hard to avoid pointers. Does that mean you should? So Joel's got the concepts he likes (pointers and recursion), and laments their decline, but doesn't seem to notice that there are newer concepts that he's never caught on to, which the Java kiddies feel at home with.
Joel draws an analogy to Latin and Greek being required by universities in 1900. Good point. This is where the "kids these days" arguments always fall apart. By digging back even further into the past for helpful analogies, the old timers don't even realize the trap they are falling into. Joel didn't learn Latin or Greek at Penn, and neither did I. Neither did 99.99% of the software engineers working today. Which means Mr. 1900 would look at every single one of us and consider us unfit for professional work. But we are not. We are fit for the world we find ourselves in.
Education changes, and the world changes. Which is the cause and which the effect? Perhaps it's a bit of both. In any case, the colleges produce graduates, who go into industry, and produce software. Some will be good at it, some will not. This is how it has always been. In my experience, most of what is truly helpful in writing software didn't come out of a text book or off of a blackboard. So much of the day-to-day work of writing software is completely missing from curricula anyway, why worry about it? You want a good software engineering education? The final project should be to take some other kids' project from last year and adapt it to do something he didn't even consider. Then the result gets passed on to another kid next year. That would be an education!
The Java kiddies will learn to write software. Some of that learning will happen in college, some will happen on the job. Joel learned on Pascal, a language specifically simplified for teaching. When I started at Penn in 1980, the first course in the computer science curriculum was Introduction to Programming in, you guessed it, Pascal, because Pascal was trendy for teaching in 1980. Java is trendy now. The industry survived Pascal and its students, and it will survive Java.
And you know what? Twenty years from now, the Java kiddies will be the old timers, and they'll probably be lamenting how computer science is being taught in 2026. So it has always been, and so it will always be. Geez, old-timers these days!