←back to thread

Thomas E. Kurtz has died

(computerhistory.org)
614 points 1986 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
smarks ◴[] No.42142776[source]
Like several others here, my first programming language was BASIC. For this we owe Kurtz a debt of gratitude.

I know Dijkstra is famous for having said that we're mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration, but you know, I kinda think we didn't turn out half bad.

replies(3): >>42142995 #>>42143386 #>>42144898 #
microtherion ◴[] No.42142995[source]
I know literally zero working programmers who learned programming the way Dijkstra thought it should be taught — not even Dijkstra himself, as Donald Knuth once gently pointed out.

Practically everybody in my generation started off with BASIC. On the other hand, at some point (when?), this practice stopped, and the newer generations turned out fine starting out with more civilized languages.

replies(2): >>42143247 #>>42145272 #
niteshpant ◴[] No.42143247[source]
Consider me naive, but what way did Dijkstra thought it should be taught? Someone who first learned to code in QBASIC
replies(5): >>42143332 #>>42143498 #>>42143818 #>>42143880 #>>42150516 #
microtherion ◴[] No.42143818[source]
Dijkstra thought of computer science as a subdomain of mathematics, and thought that hands-on experimentation with actual computers would mostly lead students astray. A program should all be worked out and proven correct before (optionally) feeding it to a computer, and testing and even more so debugging were abhorrent practices.

BASIC, on the other hand, is more aligned with what Seymour Papert later came to call "Constructionism": the student learns by experimentation.

replies(3): >>42144088 #>>42148770 #>>42150316 #
1. tasty_freeze ◴[] No.42144088[source]
It is the "correct by construction" approach vs the "construct by correction" approach.