3 Jan
2012
3 Jan
'12
10:46 p.m.
On 01/03/2012 03:44 PM, Richard wrote:
...and the result is the horrid crop of morons who call themselves
"programmers" today. C++ is perhaps the worst choice for a first
language. What makes it even worse is how the object-oriented
methodology is taught.
It was thus
said that the Great Fred Cisin once stated:
>>> Of course, there are people who think if it doesn't look like C/C++, it
>>> ain't programmin'. :-) (Of course, not talking about you, Josh -
just
>>> say lambda!)
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Richard wrote:
>> C++11 has lambda expressions.
>
> Would yu use that for teaching programming to first-time beginners?
For the record, no, I don't recommend C++ for beginners, although some
do and many have done that as their first programming course. I would
probably start with Logo, then C#, then C++, then assembly.
Logo is an interesting first choice...keeps things interesting and
fun. I also agree with your last choice. But C#...teaching a
proprietary single-platform commercial language designed with vendor
lock-in as its first criteria, which came into being purely with the
goal of unseating another language, isn't a good idea at all to present
in academia, unless presented as a sidebar entitled "here's how
perversely greedy the industry you're about to go into can get".
Maybe C++ should be in that list, sure, but before assembly? Maybe
switch those two around. Teach them how computers actually *work* first
(which is pretty well accomplished by assembly, at least from the
software perspective, how code is executed), that may go at least part
way toward keeping them from abusing the true procedural/imperative
nature of processors too much with the repugnant
abstract-for-abstractions-sake-performance-be-damned-look-how-clever-I-am mess
that is C++.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA