One of the main points of this article is the fact that when teaching computer programming, many instuctors fail to pass on the "Big Picture" or main idea to their students, since they [the instructors] already understand it. Students are so focused on g etting this literal machine to do what they want it to while learning a new syntax, that they sometimes need someone to point them in the right direction and remind them what they're supposed to get out of the whole experience -- how to put it all togethe r.

Students see the problem with this as being the fact that there are no shortcuts or easy answers. You have to work at learning and understanding the material, because code is cryptic, even in a highly abstracted or pseudo-level. As I've said before many times, CS requires a different kind of thinking than other disciplines, be they sciences or humanities. That's why the authors say that often all of CS can be a "trouble spot" for students. Professors grading a paper can make an "educated guess" as to what a student's main idea was, what they were getting at, etc. However, a compiler's literal interpretation offers none of this.

The metacourse described in this article seems as though it would serve as a great introduction to indroductory programming (i.e. a prep course for our CS15). Unfortunately, 15 is usually taken in the first semester of the freshman year, and most people know (roughly) what they're in for when they enroll.

When Lucas wrote this reaction he had no idea what he was talking about...in fact he didn't even know the title of the article...

Maybe it was to get his point across about the "big picture," "There are no 'articles' just one big idea, in fact one big 'paper' that's not by me alone, but by you, and you, and you, and you, and you were there and you..."