[nick__m]

from the article:

  To that end, I’ve left out a lot of the advanced features (so far), such as:

    Templates
    Type inference
    Operator overloading
    Overloading in general!
    __traits
    Classes/Interfaces/OOP
    Pointers/references (mostly)
    Memory management in general (thank you GC!)

[Jach]

I have no teaching experience to back it up yet I've always felt this approach of intentionally leaving out very nifty, useful, and sometimes important bits of knowledge is bad. For sure, in the scope of one class there's not enough time to thoroughly teach everything and test on it, tradeoffs have to be made, but I'd still rather instructors explicitly mention such things as briefly as they can get away with (but three times) just with the expectation that not everyone is going to really even 'get' them and it won't be on any tests. People very much go with what they know (you'll find bubble sort in production software, alas) and if you don't even give them a sign for "here's something you might want to explore on your own or come back to if you run into it again later" most won't set foot beyond their present understanding. The worst offender in this sort of omission I think comes from the excellent SICP book -- it's not the book's fault, it's not even really trying to "teach Lisp", but people nevertheless use the book and as a side effect learn a bit of Scheme, which they confuse (because no one told them otherwise) for thinking that they now know Lisp. But they don't. In order to know Lisp one needs to learn Common Lisp with its macros, its OOP, its condition system, its types (which SBCL can check at compile time and use for more optimized assembly), its packages, its approach to interactive development... It's the same issue as high school C++ courses (I assume some of them are still around!) teaching it as C with classes, and never hearing about (let alone touching), say, templates, let alone any of the modern C++0x and on features.