Assessing the ripple effect of CS1 language choice

  • Authors:

  • Adair Dingle;Carol Zander

  • Affiliations:

  • Computer Science & Software Engineering, Seattle Univeristy, Seattle, WA;Computing and Software Systems, University of Washington, Bothell, WA

  • Venue:
  • CCSC '00 Proceedings of the fourteenth annual consortium on Small Colleges Southeastern conference
  • Year:
  • 2000

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Java has reinvigorated the debate on the `best' language to use for CS1. Much of the controversy centers on the goals of CS1, specific language constructs that either hinder or support the first formal introduction to programming, and, even, `real-world' relevance. Missing from typical discussions is the effect of the language choice in CS1 on CS2 and subsequent courses in the CS curriculum. In all such dialogues, it is important to note the characteristics of the department at hand. While many programs can afford to choose a language (such as Scheme) purely for pedagogical reasons, others (if not most), due to pressure from students, industry, advisory boards, select a language with some market appeal. Small departments that serve students who expect an immediate transition to a professional job typically choose a traditional procedural language like C, Pascal, Modula-2, or a popular OO language like C++, Java, Ada95, or Visual Basic. Hence, we focus here on the choice of one of these languages, and the resulting effects on students' progression in the CS curriculum.