|
I can imagine reasoning behind that, at least today. Last year, I've been tutoring a teenager who wanted to take CS on his maturity exam[0]. The exam has a theoretical (algorithms, knowledge) and practical (programming, data science, databases) parts; for the latter, you're expected to write some code in one of several approved languages, using one of several sets of approved tooling (which includes FOSS tooling). My student wanted to use C++, and thus had a choice between Visual C++, DevC++ and CodeBlocks. It's quite obvious that one of these three is entirely not like the others. Between advanced IntelliSense, errors being flagged as you type, limited on-the-fly static analysis, and semantic suggestions[1], you don't have to know as much about C++ to succeed - the IDE will let you click your way into a working program. All of these are very useful features when you already mostly know what you're doing. But if you're being tested for your knowledge? That defeats the assumptions of the exam, and of the educational framework behind it. Good education needs to walk a fine line of making sure the tooling augments, not replaces your understanding - so I can understand if some universities choose to skip IDEs initially, letting the students understand the problems their tools are solving for them. -- [0] - aka. "matura", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matura#In_Poland. CS is one of the optional topics you can take, and since our universities don't do admission exams, your score on STEM topics on matura is important if you want to continue formal education in technical subjects. [1] - Green, squiggly lines, programmer equivalent to grammar checks from Word :). |