Re: programming languages as a core topic

[Dina Q Goldin <dqg@cs.umb.edu>]

I am a member of one of the KFGs for CC-2001.  I agree that it is too late
in the process to start changing the overall number of core hours, or the
topics that we want to be included. However, I believe that it is still
possible for the PL people to get a fairer shake in this process.  Let me
explain.

In addition to the PL KFG, there is also a Programming Fundamentals (PF)
KFG which has a whopping 65 core hours (vs. 5 for PL):

	http://www.computer.org/education/cc2001/report/PF.html

There are some items in the PF section that can easily be classified as
"programming language" material, such as all of PF2 (which is 10 core
hours by itself) and a lot of PF3 (12 core hours).

It seems perfectly reasonable, if fact sensible, to reshuffle these two a
little bit... Seems those two KFG chairs need to go out and talk it over a
few beers.

Dina

Assistant Professor				URL : www.cs.umb.edu/~dqg
Math & Computer Science Department		Tel : 617-287-6483
University of Massachusetts / Boston		Fax : 617-287-6499
100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125		Room: S-3-92A

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Kim wrote:

> [----- The Types Forum, http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/types -----]
> 
> Colleagues:
> 
> I am happy to see Matthias' attempt to draft support for programming
> languages in Curriculum 2001.  The main curriculum committee, after
> numerous urgings on my part, set up a Programming Languages Knowledge
> Units Focus Group (KFG).  Members of the group were Kim Bruce (PL KFG
> chair, Williams College), Benjamin Goldberg (New York University), Chris
> Haynes (Indiana University), Gary Leavens (Iowa State University), John
> Mitchell (Stanford University), and Joseph Hummel (University of
> Illinois at Chicago).
> 
> On very short notice, we developed a preliminary set of recommendations
> for programming languages "knowledge units".  Over our loud complaints,
> the committee cut these recommendations to roughly those currently in
> the curriculum draft.  In fact, we only found out about these cuts when
> the full committee released the strawman version of the curriculum recommendations.
> 
> At that point we attempted to rally support from the community by
> publishing an article in the April, 2000, SIGPLAN Notices.  That
> article, which includes many more details, can be found on-line at 
> 	http://www.cs.williams.edu/~kim/Curric2001/PLKFG.html
> 
> Unfortunately we got little response from the community from those
> efforts, and very few changes were made by the curriculum committee to
> the programming languages material.  While I believe it may still be
> possible to influence the committee at the margins, the committee is
> unlikely to make major changes at this late date.  I hope the community
> can find a more effective way of making the case earlier in the process
> in the future.
> 
> 	Kim
> 
> Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> >  
> > Dear Colleagues --
> > 
> > ACM's and IEEE's joint task on curriculum development has released its
> > "ironman draft" proposal for a new core curriculum in computer science. The
> > draft allocates six hours to the area of programming languages, relegating
> > it to third-class status. I have written a letter of protest and ask for
> > your support. Please visit my Web site where I have posted the letter and
> > where you can find some additional information on the topic:
> > 
> >    http://www.cs.rice.edu/~matthias/cc2001.html
> > 
> > Regards -- Matthias Felleisen
> 
> -- 
> Kim B. Bruce
> Department of Computer Science
> Williams College
>