Re: [gentoo-dev] Programming advice wanted?

[Marc Giger]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:36:20 -0800 (PST)
Dennis Allison <allison@×××××××××××××××.edu> wrote:

>
> I don't want to start a flame war, but after an initial love affair I
> dont't much like Java.  It's not a "better C++", it's a "different
> C++". I

More or less. Java = tidied up C++ what the syntax concerns.

> found the hype associated with the language irritatiing and the lack
> of stability as the language evolved unfortunate.  But there are
> places where the language was useful and I put aside my personal
> prejudices and worked with the notation.
>
> But, I personally don't think Java's a good language for Andrew's
> purpose--which is to learn to program.

I should read his mail again. I have to clarify my statement:

If someone would like to learn OOP I would suggest Java because it's a
modern language with modern concepts.

>
> In a very real sense, I think assembly lanaguage (or even Hex machine
> code) may be a good place to start to learn programming.  A good macro
> assembler is an awesome tool in the hands of a skilled programmer.
> Some beginning programming books--Yale Patt's in particular--adopt the
> view that everyone should learn about programming from the bits up.
>
> My point was/is that programming is language independent.  I've always
> liked Michael Griffith's comment about programming: "I always use the
> same programming language no matter what the compiler" or something
> like that.  Using a polymorphic, internally consistent,
> object-oriented language like Python is a good framework to learn
> programming. I think Python does a pretty good job of capturing the
> abstractions you need to write simple, conceptually clear programs.
> You don't have to worry about the nits, you can program interactively
> and see what happens, and there's not the huge overhead of type
> mechanisms to drag into every single little program. The language is
> introspective (aka introspective) so programs can learn about their
> own structure.
>
> But ultimately the only way to learn about programming is to read
> programs and work with masters in the field.   It's still an art not a
> science.
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Marc Giger wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:13:42 -0600
> > Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@×××××××××××.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dennis Allison wrote:
> > > > First, it is important to understand that programming is
> > > > independent of any particular programming language.  Languages
> > > > are just the representation or notation for programs.  Some are
> > > > large and complex and likely to get in the way of understanding
> > > > programming (C++); others are spare and simple and conceptually
> > > > clean (Python, Scheme).
> > > >
> > > > I'd begin with Python and then move on to other languages.
> > > > Starting with C++ is a bit like deciding you want to take up
> > > > mountain climbing and that the first mountain you want to climb
> > > > is Mount Everest.
> > >
> > > While I do completely agree with that analogy, C++ was the first
> > > (real) language I learned (after Apple BASIC, QBasic, VB, and Java
> > > (*I* do not consider Java a real language)) and
> >
> > I really don't understand what people have against Java?!? Is it
> > because of Sun and its license?
> > I have many years of experience in java programming and also learned
> > object oriented programming with it. In my opinion it's good and
> > clean. How many other languages do you know, which works on multiple
> > platforms without recompiling, run as a plugin in browsers, has deep
> > security concept built in (sandbox, bytecode verifier, etc),
> > multithreading as a basic language feature, exception handling,
> > RPC/RMI, etc etc etc ...
> >
> > If someone really is interested in understanding object oriented
> > programming then I would advise to begin with Java.
> >
> > > it gave me a broad understanding of the way that any language
> > > works. Because I know C/C++, I can easily pick up new languages
> > > because I don't have to learn new concepts.
> >
> > Agreed, but as you said, your first language was not C/C++ but
> > Basic, VB, Java etc. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you
> > learned(hopefully) object oriented programming mostly with Java.
> >
> > In my case I learned OOP in Java and could utilize it to C++ without
> > big problems. The only strange thing was weird language constructs
> > and discrepancies in C/C++.
> >
> > Please don't get me wrong.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
> >
>
> --
> Dennis Allison * Computer Systems Laboratory * Gates 227
>                * Stanford University *  Stanford CA  94305
> 	       * [phone] * [phone] fax
> 	       * allison@×××××××××××××××.edu
> 	       * allison@×××××××××××××××.edu
>
>

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list