Python and C#: a comparative analysis from Students’ perspective

• Autorzy: Swacha J. , Muszyńska K.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Python and C# are two programming languages of great educational value. Python has a simple and clear syntax, as well as a concise and readable source code, but is relatively slow, and its industrial applications are mostly web-based. Although the syntax and code readability of C# does not match the Python's high level, they are not very bad either; besides, the .NET language offers a fast JIT compiler, and can be found within a wide gamut of industrial applications. In this paper we present a comparison of these two languages, based on the data acquired from IT students who learnt both of them during programming courses. We use the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique to show the dominance of one language over another in respective comparison criteria, and obtain an overall answer which of the two languages is better, according to the ratings given by students.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Python; C#; programming languages; students; Analytic Hierarchy Process; AHP

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo UMCS
• Czasopismo: Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio AI, Informatica
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: Vol. 11, no. 1
• Strony: 89--101
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 17 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Swacha J.

• Institute of Informatics Technology in Management, University of Szczecin, Mickiewicza 64,71-101 Szczecin

autor

Muszyńska K.

• Institute of Informatics Technology in Management, University of Szczecin, Mickiewicza 64,71-101 Szczecin

Bibliografia

• [1] Lahtinen E., Ala-Mutka K., Järvinen H.-M., A study of the difficulties of novice programmers, [in:] Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, ACM, New York (2005): 14.
• [2] Swacha J., New concepts for teaching computer programming to future Information Technology engineers, [in:] Perspective Technologies and Methods in MEMS Design, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv (2010): 188.
• [3] Bowyer P., An investigation into teaching introductory programming to physics undergraduates, University of Southampton, Southampton (2006).
• [4] Chen X., Kurtonina N., Taylor S., First Programming Languages Revisited, [in:] Proceedings of the 2004 College Teaching & Learning Conference, Lake Buena Vista (2004).
• [5] Madden M., Chambers D., Evaluation of student attitudes to learning the Java language, [in:] Proceedings of the inaugural conference on the Principles and Practice of programming, National University of Ireland, Maynooth (2002): 125.
• [6] Figueira J., Greco S., Ehrgott M. (eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, Springer, New York (2005).
• [7] Olson D. L., Decision aids for selection problems, Springer-Verlag, New York (1996).
• [8] Ziemba P., Piwowarski M., Metody analizy wielokryterialnej we wspomaganiu porównywania produktów w Internecie, Metody Informatyki Stosowanej 2 (2008): 137.
• [9] Saaty T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980).
• [10] Roy B., The outranking approach and the foundations of Electre methods, Theory and decision 31 (1991): 49.
• [11] Dyer J. S., Fishburn P. C., Steuer R. E., Wallenius J., Zionts S., Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years, “Management Science” 38(5) (1992): 645.
• [12] Brans J.P., Vincke P., A preference ranking organisation method: The PROMETHEE method for MCDM, Management Science 31(6) (1985): 647.
• [13] Edwards W., Barron F. H., SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60 (1994): 306.
• [14] Beuthe M., Scannella G., Comparative analysis of UTA multicriteria methods, European Journal of Operational Research 130(2) (2001): 246.
• [15] Jadhav A. S., Sonar R. M., Evaluating and selecting software packages: A review, Information and Software Technology 51(3) (2009): 555.
• [16] Aczél J., Saaty T. L., Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements, Journal to of Mathematical Psychology 27(1) (1983): 93.
• [17] Melón M. G., Beltran P. A., Cruz M. C. G., An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study, Omega – The International Journal of Management Science 36 (2008): 754.