Category talk:Educational programming languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There are two problems here:

  • The Pascal subcategory does not make any sense.
  • There are two or perhaps three categories of languages mingled together here:
    • Languages designed for teaching programming. Many of these are also useful as general purpose programming languages. Pascal, Scheme and Turing are good examples.
    • Toy languages designed for teaching one aspect of programming. For example, miniature languages for compiler construction courses, where the point of the language is to be small enough that students can write complete compilers for it in one semester, or languages that illustrate just one semantic feature.
    • Languages designed for the construction of computer-based instructional material. Some of these are not general purpose programming languages, but others, such as TUTOR, evolved to the point that they became general purpose languages. These are certainly very distinct from the first two categories, since, in general, they were designed for use by instructors and curriculum developers, not by students.

Someone needs to look at all these languages and redo the classification scheme. Douglas Jones128.255.45.57 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)