I've read the paper, but I still find the grand metaphors like "Post-Linnaean" a bit of a reach. If you want to say that we've reached a point where few languages are pure in their approach (functional, object-oriented, etc), fine. If you want to say modern languages don't pay much a penalty for garbage collection, also fine. I just don't see the evidence that the approach hinted at has relevance to any context outside of Shriram Krishnamurthi's classroom at Brown University. It seems that most of his points that have practical application will be really old news to the programmer part of the HN readership, and have no practical value for those who aren't.
What gave you the impression that the paper was supposed to have relevance outside of a classroom? The paper has practical applications to teaching, which should be self evident given the content and venue of the paper. If you don't care then don't upvote the story. But don't try to pass off your point as a valid criticism of the paper.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to pass anything off. Someone posted a link to paper - I read it and wasn't impressed with the reasoning. (And less than impressed with the over-reaching metaphors.)
I do disagree with the author's apparent contention that, say, a historical appreciation of the evolving nature of programming paradigms is somehow holding students back today. Aside from argument by assertion, I'm missing the evidence that his approach is the solution to a problem.
What I was also missing, and am still unenlightened about after your response, is the relevance of his classroom approach to say, the readers here. It seems nearly monthly we have a story related to the virtues of SICP and that I get -- it's a great book that's changed a lot of programmer's perception of what programming is about. In this case, I'm missing a similar connection outside the classroom.
Suggesting that if you have a 'better' way of teaching, that there should be some impact outside of the classroom... seems like a perfectly valid criticism.
If the teaching is simply an end in itself and the students aren't measurably better with the new method, how can you objectively say that the method of teaching is better?
If it is better, it will produce better results, to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
