Content deleted Content added
Jerryobject (talk | contribs) Template:Infobox software parameter: add, fill. WP:LINKs: updates, add, fix WP:NOPIPE. Small WP:EoS WP:TERSE WP:COPYEDITs: clarify, parallelism (grammar). WP:REFerence WP:CITation parameter updates, respaces. Adds: Template:Official website, WP:NAVBOX Template:Lisp programming language. |
m Disambiguating links to Object-orientation (link changed to Object-oriented programming) using DisamAssist. |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2018}}
{{Infobox book
Line 25:
According to HtDP, the design process starts with a careful analysis of a problem statement with the goal of extracting a rigorous description of the kinds of [[data]] that the desired program consumes and produces. The structure of these data descriptions determines the organization of the program.
Then, the book carefully introduces data forms of progressively growing complexity
Like ''[[Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs]]'' (SICP), HtDP relies on a variant of the programming language [[Scheme (programming language)|Scheme]]. It includes its own programming [[integrated development environment]] (IDE), named [[DrRacket]], which provides a series of programming languages. The first language supports only functions, atomic data, and simple structures. Each language adds expressive power to the prior one. Except for the largest teaching language, all languages for HtDP are [[functional programming]] languages.
==Pedagogical basis==
In the 2004 paper,
|url=http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/jfp2004-fffk.pdf
|title=The Structure and Interpretation of the Computer Science Curriculum. Journal of Functional Programming, Volume 14, Issue 4 (July 2004) Pages: 365 - 378
|year=2004
|publisher=NEU
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511171056/http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/jfp2004-fffk.pdf
|archive-date=May 11, 2008
}} a paper in which the authors compare and contrast HtDP with SICP.</ref> the same authors compared and contrasted the pedagogical focus of ''How to Design Programs'' (HtDP) with that of ''[[Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs]]'' (SICP). In the 14-page paper, the authors distinguish the pedagogic focus of HtDP from that of SICP, and show how HtDP was designed as a textbook to address some problems that some students and teachers had with SICP.▼
▲}} a paper in which the authors compare and contrast HtDP with SICP.</ref> the authors distinguish the pedagogic focus of HtDP from that of SICP, and show how HtDP was designed as a textbook to address some problems that some students and teachers had with SICP.
The paper introduces the pedagogical landscape surrounding the publication of SICP. The paper starts with a history and critique of SICP, followed by a description of the goal of the [[computing]] curriculum. It then describes the principles of teaching behind HtDP; in particular, the difference between implicit vs. explicit teaching of design principles. It then continues on to describe the role of [[Scheme (programming language)|Scheme]] and the importance of an ideal [[Computer programming|programming]] environment, and concludes with an extensive evaluation of content and student/faculty reaction to experience with SICP vs. HtDP.
One of the major focuses of the paper is the emphasis on the difference in required [[___domain knowledge]] between SICP and HtDP. A chart in the paper compares major exercises in SICP and HtDP, and the related text describes how the exercises in the former require considerably more sophisticated ___domain knowledge than those of HtDP. The paper continues on to explain why this difference in required ___domain knowledge has resulted in certain students having confused ___domain knowledge with program design knowledge.
The paper claims the following four major efforts that the authors of HtDP have made to address perceived issues with SICP:
#HtDP addresses explicitly, rather than implicitly, how programs should be constructed.
#To make programming easier, the book guides students through five different knowledge levels corresponding to data definition levels of complexity.
#The book's exercises focus on program design guidelines, rather than ___domain knowledge.
#The book assumes less ___domain knowledge than that of SICP.
The paper then distinguishes between structural [[recursion]], where the related data definition happens to be [[self-referential]], requiring usually a straightforward design process, and generative recursion, where new problem data is generated in the middle of the problem-solving process and the problem solving method is re-used, often requiring ''ad hoc'' mathematical insight, and stresses how this distinction makes their approach scalable to the [[Object-oriented programming|object-oriented]] (OO) world.
Finally, the paper concludes with a description of responses from various faculty and students after having used HtDP in the classroom.
== References ==
Line 81 ⟶ 58:
== External links ==
* {{Official website|htdp.org}}, 2018 2nd edition, 2003 1st edition
{{Lisp programming language}}
Line 88 ⟶ 64:
[[Category:Computer science books]]
[[Category:MIT Press books]]
[[Category:Computer programming books]]
[[Category:Scheme (programming language)]]
[[Category:Creative Commons-licensed books]]
| |||