Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: OT: Switching Sides

by DrHyde (Prior)
on Dec 01, 2003 at 09:21 UTC ( [id://311196]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: OT: Switching Sides
in thread OT: Switching Sides

I would recommend that newbies (here I mean newbies to programming in general, not just to Perl) learn higher-level languages such as Perl first, later getting into lower-level languages such as C only if they have the aptitude and desire for it

I disagree, I don't recommend that anyone learn perl as their first language. It's better, in my opinion, to start with a low-level language, learn how computers work, and then when the apprentice has a thorough grounding in the basics the master can let him loose with high-level tools like perl and java. C makes an excellent first language for someone wanting to be a programmer.

In my more old-gittish moments, I think that C is too high-level to get started with and that everyone should learn to program a simple processor like a Z80 or a 6502 in assembly language.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: OT: Switching Sides
by jonadab (Parson) on Dec 01, 2003 at 16:17 UTC
    It's better, in my opinion, to start with a low-level language, learn how computers work

    I think it's adequate to have a chunked view of how computers work. I don't think it's necessary to know all the details of how each operation is carried out. Taken to extremes, this is really a tautology: Do you really want all beginning programmers to study microcode? Transistor gates? The relationship between power, current, voltage, and resistance? The behavior of individual electrons, the nature of metals, and the Bohr model? Quarks and quantum mechanics?

    In my more old-gittish moments, I think that C is too high-level to get started with and that everyone should learn to program a simple processor like a Z80 or a 6502 in assembly language.

    Assembly language is a far better first language than C. It's simpler. It's better documented. There are fewer really horrible examples out there, less really bad-quality code in assembly language than in C -- and the bad-quality assembly-language code they're less likely to find, because it's less likely to be in production use.

    C is a remarkably poor choice because it's just almost high-level enough that the programmer is likely to want to continue using it, rather than learning a more appropriate tool. Far too many potentially great programmers get mired in low-level thinking, forget how to work with layers of abstraction, and never recover from it. At least if you teach 'em line-number BASIC they'll want to move on.

    Then there's the other matter: there are too many C programmers already, a great surplus of them, so that many things are written in C that shouldn't be, things like entire applications that have absolutely no need for low-level fiddling and microoptimization, but they're written in C because it's the canonical ubiquitous language. This is a bad thing, as it leads to needless stupid preventable lowlevel bugs (segfaults, buffer overruns, coredumps, and the like). There would be a lot fewer computer crashes if C were only used where it's appropriate, for inherently lowlevel things (like kernels and virtual machines).


    $;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b->()}} split//,".rekcah lreP rehtona tsuJ";$\=$ ;->();print$/

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://311196]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others learning in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2024-04-18 00:26 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found