Language History — A Tale of Two Countries

  • Bill Davey
  • Kevin R. Parker
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 215)


This paper looks at the relationships between industry computer languages and those taught in universities. By considering the differences between two of the first countries to embrace programmable computers (USA and Australia) we find patterns that seem culturally independent. History shows a set of recurring problems for academics in choosing languages. This study shows that academics should be informed by history when making those decisions.


Programming Language Teaching Language Programmable Computer Language Choice Introductory Programming 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. [1]
    Allison, I., Ortin, P., and Powell, H. (2002). “A virtual learning environment for introductory programming.” Proceedings of the 3rd Annual conference of the Learning and Teaching Support Network Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, Loughborough, UK.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    de Raadt, M., Watson, R., and Toleman, M. (2003a). “Introductory programming languages at Australian universities at the beginning of the twenty first century.” Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology 35(3): 163–167.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    de Raadt, M. d., R. Watson, et al. (2003b). “Language tug-Of-war: Industry demand and academic choice.” Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2003), Adelaide, Australia., Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Emigh, K L. (2001). “The impact of new programming languages on university curriculum.” Proceedings of ISECON 2001, Cincinnati, Ohio, 18, 1146–1151. Retrieved July 10, 2005 from Scholar
  5. [5]
    Gee, Q. H., Wills, G. and Cooke, E. (2005). “A first programming language for IT students.” Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the Learning and Teaching Support Network Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, York, UK.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Gottliebsen, C. (1999). Computer market results 1999. C. Gottliebsen. Bayswater, GIMAGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Gottliebsen, C. (2001). Icon index trend report 2001. Icon index Trend Report. B. Youston. Bayswater.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Howland, J.E. (1997). “It’s all in the language: yet another look at the choice of programming language for teaching computer science.” Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 12(4): 58–74, Scholar
  9. [9]
    Jenkins, T. (2001). “The motivation of students of programming.” ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education ITiCSE’ 01 33(3).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Jenkins, T. (2002). “On the difficulty of learning to program.” Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference of the Learning and Teaching Support Network Centre for Information and Computing Science, Loughborough, UK.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Johnson, L.F. (1995). “C in the first course considered harmful.” Communications of the ACM 38(5): 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Keet, E. E. (2004). “A personal recollection of software’s early days (1960–1979): Part 1.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (October–December).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kelleher, C. and Pausch, R. (2005). “Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers.” ACM Computing Surveys 37(2): 83–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    King, K.N. (1992). “The evolution of the programming languages course.” Proceedings of the Twenty-Third SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Kansas City, Missouri, pp. 213–219.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kölling, M., B. Koch, et al. (1995). “Requirements for a first year object-oriented teaching language.” ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Proceedings of the twenty-sixth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education 27(1).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Langley, N. (2004). “COBOL integrates with Java and. NET.” Computer Weekly. ht1p:// Scholar
  17. [17]
    Lee, P.A., and Stroud, R.J. (1996). “C++ as an introductory programming language.” in M. Woodman (Ed.), Programming Language Choice: Practice and Experience, London: International Thomson Computer Press, pp. 63–82. Scholar
  18. [18]
    Levy, S. P. (1995). “Computer Language Usage In CS 1: Survey Results.” SIGCSE 27(3): 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    McCauley, R. and Manaris, B., (1998). “Computer science programs: what do they look like?” Proceedings of the 29th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, February, pp. 15–19.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Mclver, L. and Conway, D.M. (1996). “Seven deadly sins of introductory programming language design.” Proceedings of Software Engineering: Education and Practice (SE:E&P’96), Dunedin, NZ, pp.309–316.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Merritt, S. M. (1980). “On the importance of teaching Pascal in the IS curriculum.” ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Proceedings of the eleventh IGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education SIGCSE’ 80 12(1).Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Parker, K. R., T. O. Ottaway, et al. (2006). “Criteria for the selection of a programming language for introductory courses.” International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 2(1/2) 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Riehle, R. (2003). “SEPR and programming language selection.” CrossTalk-The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 16(2): 13–17, Scholar
  24. [24]
    Sammet, J. E. (1972). “Programming languages: History and future.” Communications of the ACM 15(7): 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Smillie, K. (2004). “People, languages, and computers:A short memoir.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (April–June): 60–73.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Smith, C. and Rickman, J. (1976). “Selecting languages for pedagogical tools in the computer science curriculum,” ACM SIGSE Bulletin 8(3): 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Smolarski, D.C. (2003). “A first course in computer science: Languages and goals.” Teaching Mathematics and Computer Science 1(1): 137–152. Retrieved November 10, 2005 from Scholar
  28. [28]
    Solntseff, N. (1978). “Programming languages for introductory computing courses: a position paper.” ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 10(1): 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Stephenson, C. (2000). “A report on high school computer science education in five US states.” Scholar
  30. [30]
    Tatnall, A. and B. Davey (2004). “Stream in the history of computer education in Australia.” History of Computing in Education. J. Impagliazzo and J. A. N. Lee, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Watt, D.A. (2000). “Programming languages-Trends in education.” Proceedings of Simposio Brasileiro de Linguagens de Programacao, Recife, Brazil, Scholar
  32. [32]
    Wirth, N. (1993). “Recollections about the development of Pascal.” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, The second ACM SIGPLAN conference on History of programming languages HOPL-II 28(3).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Zeigler, S.F. (1995). “Comparing development costs of C and Ada.” Rational Software Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif, March 30.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Zelle, J. M. (1999). “Python as a first language.” Proceedings 13th Annual Midwest Computer Conference (MCC 99), March 18–19, Lisle, IL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bill Davey
    • 1
  • Kevin R. Parker
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Business Information TechnologyRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Idaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA

Personalised recommendations