[j_w]

Rethink it in written language:

> Surely you don't think that the details of a particular written language's syntax are an appropriate criteria for grading an exam?

Computer science is the science of computing. Programming languages are the language used to implement computer science. Therefore you would expect that students accurately use the programming language to answer questions about computing. Seems reasonable to me.

[nradov]

You don't need programming languages to implement computer science. Pseudo code suffices for exams.

[j_w]

You don't need programming languages to DESCRIBE computer science but to implement it you need some programming language.

Quite literally an "implementation detail."

[nradov]

If instructors are testing implementation details on paper exams then they're really missing the point of CS education. Completely lazy and incompetent, should be terminated.

[j_w]

It's a balancing act.

Some portion of computer science education needs to be practical (implementation details), while some portion needs to be pure computer science (pseudo code).

Obviously projects are a good way to measure implementation details, but they are too easily cheated. Every class I took had exams as 80% or more of the grade. Not every class expected accurate syntax on exams, but most expected code rather than pseudo code (typically C).