[joshstrange]

I wish my professors had been more like you, or at least approached it with similar reasoning.

Writing c++ boilerplate for a function on paper and losing points for leaving off a ";" both made my blood boil and heavily shaped my views on how programming is taught in college (or at least the one I went to). I also just didn't care much for c++ since I was much more interested in web development (PHP/JS at the time). I used to write all my c++ programs in PHP then once I got them working I'd convert them to c++ to submit to the teacher.

I have no issues going lower-level if needed, I've written Perl (which I consider under python/PHP personally, not sure what others think) when it makes sense for the task (log parsing) and written a tiny bit of C here and there. Lower-level languages just require much more mental overhead for me whereas I can move much faster in a higher-level language and shorten my "Write code"-"See result" cycle which is important for me personally.

[tombert]

Yeah, I almost never took off points for syntax, and never during exams. I would take off two points for homework assignments if it didn't compile simply because I'd have to go and manually fix it so it'd compile so I could check the behavior, which was annoying, but I felt that was a little unfair during exams because those are on a much shorter timespan and are more stressful.

I think some professors are a bit sociopathic. Fundamentally a computer science class should be teaching computer science concepts. Anyone can learn the syntax of a language pretty quickly. As a teenager I used to think I was super smart because I would "learn" a new programming language every week because I'd more or less just pick up the syntax differences between the new language and C++, and so I felt like because I could write a loop in the new language I "knew" it. It's much harder to learn and understand the concepts, and despite being a software engineer for 13 years I don't pretend to understand all of them (sort of a Dunning Kruger thing I guess?).

Professors should know this. The value-add of college should be more (or at least different) than you can pick up from an O'Reilly book you buy at Barnes and Noble for $30.

[joshstrange]

> Anyone can learn the syntax of a language pretty quickly.

Agreed, I can become "dangerous" in a new language quickly but actually being good in a language takes practice and time.

> The value-add of college should be more (or at least different) than you can pick up from an O'Reilly book you buy at Barnes and Noble for $30.

And to be fair it is more and different, just not 1,000-10,000 times better (when the cost is). There is a ton of value in having a good teacher, unfortunately we pay most teachers at all levels peanuts but expect them all to be rock stars. I seriously considered teaching at one point in my life but couldn't stomach the crap they have to put up with for so little. The teaching/mentoring I've done in a professional capacity has always been incredibly rewarding.

[tombert]

Yep, there's a reason that I am no longer an adjunct professor. There were parts I liked about it, but it was a lot of work and even more of a time sink, for not much pay. It was immensely satisfying to teach students who wanted to be there and wanted to learn, it was less satisfying when students wouldn't show up to any classes start begging for more time to take the exam, or when students would cheat on tests.

I do recommend doing the adjunct thing for one semester if you're able to, it actually is something that I think has really helped me in a lot of ways (increased empathy for people struggling with math/CS concepts, slowing down my talking speed when speaking publicly, etc.). You might like it, you might hate it, you might not be sure what you feel about it (that's my case), but the worst case scenario is you don't do it next semester.