> Do you mean that the course was geared not to Pascal in general (using,
> for example, a free cross-platform Pascal compiler like the one at
> http://www.freepascal.org) but to a specific commercial Pascal that only
> runs on a particular processor?
>
> This seems to me old '80s-style badness.  Or am I missing something?

I dont know specifically what Oxford do, but I did spend ten years teaching
firsly Pascal then C, and finally Java to undergraduates... Any language has to
be compiled on *something* and a large chunk of the first few weeks tends to be
helping people get used to this rather than actually concentrating on what they
are supposed to be learning. When you get spare time to actually overhaul
the course notes then the effort is usually far more valuably put in by
re-writting the body of the course dedicated to teaching the actual *language*
itself - i.e. by making it into a better Pascal course. Chnaging the
compiler ends up with you also having to retrain all the demonstraters, iron
out any bugs in the new compiler system and at the end of all that effort
you dont have a better course, you merely have the same course on
different compiler. Loyts of effort for no benifit to the students, indeed
the usually get a worse experience the first time the course is run as they
end up being guinea pigs for the new compiling system.

Time and resources are limited and when available should (hopefully) be directed
towards whatever improves the standard of education for the students. Sadly
other things often end up being dropped by the wayside and you have courses
being taught on some very odd old equipment.

This isnt actually a bad thing anyway - after all the object is to teach the
language and programming skills not the use of the compiler (thats just a
means to an end). Its very healthy for stundents to be exposed to odd
proprietary commercial compiling systems too as they will be the first things
they run up against when they go out and work in the real world after all :-)

Side point: if your course also invloves looking at what code a compiler
actually generates to do the job then Motorola assembly language is one
of the easiest to get to grips with. Unfortunately the GNu compilers (well,
last time I looked) generate that odd MIT syntax assembler which is nowhere
near as easy for the average user to read comming to it for the first time.
Intel assembly alnguage is similarly obscure, so using a 68k compiler which
]generates "stanbdard" motorla syntax assembler (i.e. what the stundets would
find in the 68K manual or any text book in the library) is probably a major
plus point too. One of my first jobs at york was to migrate from Whitesmiths
C compiler to GCC for the micro systems lab. Which made for a better compiling
environment, sure, but did make it actually harder to explain to the students
what was going on.

Hmm, gone off at a tanget somewhat (and as I'm not Oxford its probably not my
place to answer all of this stuff anyway!). But just a personal experience
to say that I can see why they do thing that way... never underestimate how
underfunded and overstetched Universities are ! :-)

-pete.

PS: Nice to see someone still uses Pascal for the purpoose it was intended - as
a teaching language. The fact people dont learn it first anymore has done a lot
of harm to the way people understand the formal structure of a block structured
language.

PPS: Also nice to see a Physics department that isnt still teaching FORTRAN77
as the ultimate langueg for doing evereything in. :-)
.  [4~ [4~