Bachelor studies in Computer Science at our department in the last decades cover several successive core courses in programming: Introduction to Programming, Data Structures and Algorithms 1 and 2, Operating Systems and Compiler Construction. For a long time our intention was not to insist on the realization of subjects in a specific programming language, but to put emphasis on abstract reasoning and appropriate data structures and algorithms. Also, to avoid teaching different languages and programming environments, we decided to use one good educational language – Modula-2. In the last several years we were under different kinds of pressure to change the language. Starting from the last school-year we decided to adopt Java within the introductory programming course, using the imperative approach first. Some comparisons of students’ advancements and success between Modula-2 and Java generations are presented in the paper. The results of the analytical evaluation indicate that the choice of the first programming language does not have a deep influence to students’ success at the course.

1.
L.
 
Boszormenyi
,
Why JAVA is not my favorite first-course language
,
Software Concepts & Tools
 
19
(
3
),
141
–
145
(
1998
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s003780050017
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
2.
K. J.
 
Goldman
,
An interactive environment for beginning Java programmers
,
Science of Computer Programming
 
53
(
1
),
3
–
24
(
2004
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2004.02.002
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
3.
M.
 
Ivanović
 and
Z.
 
Budimac
,
First programming language – never-ending story
.
Symposium SCLIT 2013, ICNAAM 2013
,
AIP Conf. Proc.
 
1558
,
Rhodes, Greece
,
2013
, pp.
353
–
356
.
Google Scholar
 
4.
D.
 
Lightfoot
,
Is Oberon (even) better than Modula-2 for teaching High-Quality programming
.
Proc. of Second International Modula-2 Conference
,
United Kingdom
,
1991
, pp.
91
–
100
.
Google Scholar
 
5.
B.
 
Meyer
,
The Outside-In Method of Teaching Introductory Programming
, in
Manfred
 
Broy
 and
Alexandre V.
 
Zamulin
, eds.,
Ershol Memorial Conference
, volume
2890
of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Springer
,
2003
, pp.
66
–
78
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
6.
J. A.
 
Turner
,
Computing Curricula 1991
,
CACM
 
34
(
6
),
69
–
70
(
1991
).
Google Scholar
 
7.
K.
 
Bruce
,
Controversy on How to Teach CS1: A Discussion on the SIGCSE-members Mailing List
.
ACM SIGCSE Bulletin
 
36
(
4
),
29
–
34
(
2004
).
https://doi.org/10.1145/1041624.1041652
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
8.
S.
 
Xinogalos
,
Using Flowchart-based Programming Environments for Simplifying Programming and Software Engineering Processes
,
EDUCON Conference
,
Berlin, Germany
,
2013
, pp.
1313
–
1322
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
9.
S. H.
 
Moritz
 and
G. D.
 
Blank
,
A Design-First Curriculum for Teaching Java in a CS1 Course
,
ACM SIGCSE Bulletin
 
37
(
2
),
89
–
93
(
2005
).
https://doi.org/10.1145/1083431.1083471
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2016 Author(s).
2016
Author(s)
You do not currently have access to this content.