First, I am under the impression that a great many CS professors teach CS using Java.
Second, are you suggesting that since banks love Java, then Java is a language that supports maintenance of huge codebases by teams of programmers of varying ability to a greater extent than Scheme or any other language?
Third, I am confused by the suggestion that "elegant" languages are somehow unsuitable for writing "predictable, easily readable code." Can you expand on this?
Update: Fourth, I forgot the essential point I was implying in my original question. What is there about "maintenance of huge codebases by teams of programmers of varying ability" that isn't a CS fundamental?
Sure, if you are talking about Computer Science as a study of the properties of a formal system, this is irrrelevant and lost amidst talk about category theory and turing equivalence. However if you look at CS in a wider context you have professors teaching things like encapsulation, which has certain important implications for the study of formal systems but also has important implications for "maintenance of huge codebases by teams of programmers of varying ability."
This is part of the motivation for Wirth expanding Pascal into the Modula family of languages: To create a language that was useful for teaching and practical for the construction of the Lilith workstation.
I can't imagine anything about "maintenance of huge codebases by teams of programmers of varying ability" that isn't a suitable topic for teaching and especially research.
My impression is that most CS profs teach Java because they've been forced to and that they're not very happy about it. Which makes sense, because Java is a terrible language for teaching fundamentals.
And yes, I do think Java is much better than Scheme for the kind of software a bank wants. The rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros make it easily to build very powerful tools, which you need when you're wading through a huge, unfamiliar codebase. These same features make it pretty easy to jump into an arbitrary codeblock and understand what it's doing. Scheme, for example, is so flexible that you can design your own exception-handling and iteration constructs, which nobody but you can read.
As far as elegance goes, it counts mostly in the small. Quicksort in Haskell is a thing of beauty but most production code looks nothing like this. The vast majority of real production code is just API glue and simple iterations and elegance just doesn't enter into the discussion.
Your arguments appear to be of your own construction, not of mine. I never said Scheme is an ideal language for teaching, you did. Yet in the same thread, you deride "elegant" languages as only being elegant in the small. This thread is about devising a new language for teaching. If the Scheme is only elegant in the small, why would we use it for teaching? We would devise a language that isn't anything like Scheme if we believed what you profess to believe.
If "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros make it easily to build very powerful tools," why wouldn't we teach with a language featuring "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros?"
Overall, I get the strong impression that you like Java and don't like Scheme. Have at it, you are not alone. But there is no reason for me to debate that with you, since at no time have I said that I prefer Scheme to Java for teaching or for industry.
My claim is, essentially, that if we are designing a single new language, then whatever characteristics we think are appropriate for demonstrating CS concepts will also be appropriate for business. I voiced no objection to static typing or rigid syntax or lack of macros. You did.
If "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros make it easily to build very powerful tools," why wouldn't we teach with a language featuring "rigid syntax, static type system, and built-in OO, and lack of macros?
Because the point of CS education is to teach concepts, not tools, and all of those features actually obscure the core ideas. It's the same reason that code examples in textbooks aren't littered with the kinds of error handling code that real production code requires. It's the same reason that medical students work on cadavers before getting anywhere close to a real operating room and all the extra risks and distractions that entails.
Overall, I get the strong impression that you like Java and don't like Scheme.
No, I'm just not one of those people that tends to assume that industry programmers are either stupid and/or ignorant for hesitating to build commercial apps in research languages.
You equate "teaching language" with "research language." You believe that a language with rigid syntax, static typing, and built-in OO would obscure the core ideas of computer science. Fine. You believe that. I'm sure you grasp that others, especially the list of people mentioned in the post, do not share your views.
So, what we have here is that you have certain beliefs about what makes a language suitable for teaching and what makes a language suitable for industry, and on the basis of your views, you do not believe that the same language would be suitable for both purposes. I accept logically that your conclusions are compatible with your beliefs.
I don't understand your last sentence. It seems to be some sort of axe grinding, as I certainly don't recall saying anything about industry programmers being ignorant or stupid.
So all together, I can't think of anything new to add to this thread. I feel like a foil used for you to set up and demolish your own arguments.
Second, are you suggesting that since banks love Java, then Java is a language that supports maintenance of huge codebases by teams of programmers of varying ability to a greater extent than Scheme or any other language?
Third, I am confused by the suggestion that "elegant" languages are somehow unsuitable for writing "predictable, easily readable code." Can you expand on this?
Update: Fourth, I forgot the essential point I was implying in my original question. What is there about "maintenance of huge codebases by teams of programmers of varying ability" that isn't a CS fundamental?
Sure, if you are talking about Computer Science as a study of the properties of a formal system, this is irrrelevant and lost amidst talk about category theory and turing equivalence. However if you look at CS in a wider context you have professors teaching things like encapsulation, which has certain important implications for the study of formal systems but also has important implications for "maintenance of huge codebases by teams of programmers of varying ability."
This is part of the motivation for Wirth expanding Pascal into the Modula family of languages: To create a language that was useful for teaching and practical for the construction of the Lilith workstation.
I can't imagine anything about "maintenance of huge codebases by teams of programmers of varying ability" that isn't a suitable topic for teaching and especially research.