| 1 |
On Monday 22 Mar 2004 20:48, Andrew Gaffney wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dennis Allison wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I don't want to start a flame war, but after an initial love affair I |
| 4 |
> > dont't much like Java. It's not a "better C++", it's a "different C++". |
| 5 |
> > I found the hype associated with the language irritatiing and the lack of |
| 6 |
> > stability as the language evolved unfortunate. But there are places |
| 7 |
> > where the language was useful and I put aside my personal prejudices and |
| 8 |
> > worked with the notation. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > But, I personally don't think Java's a good language for Andrew's |
| 11 |
> > purpose--which is to learn to program. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Tom Wesley was the OP, not me :) The point is still valid, though. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Who said that? ;) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > In a very real sense, I think assembly lanaguage (or even Hex machine |
| 19 |
> > code) may be a good place to start to learn programming. A good macro |
| 20 |
> > assembler is an awesome tool in the hands of a skilled programmer. Some |
| 21 |
> > beginning programming books--Yale Patt's in particular--adopt the view |
| 22 |
> > that everyone should learn about programming from the bits up. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Assembly is something I still wish to learn. Maybe I actually will someday. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I've neither the patience or the coffee, me thinks. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> > My point was/is that programming is language independent. I've always |
| 30 |
> > liked Michael Griffith's comment about programming: "I always use the |
| 31 |
> > same programming language no matter what the compiler" or something like |
| 32 |
> > that. Using a polymorphic, internally consistent, object-oriented |
| 33 |
> > language like Python is a good framework to learn programming. I think |
| 34 |
> > Python does a pretty good job of capturing the abstractions you need to |
| 35 |
> > write simple, conceptually clear programs. You don't have to worry about |
| 36 |
> > the nits, you can program interactively and see what happens, and there's |
| 37 |
> > not the huge overhead of type mechanisms to drag into every single little |
| 38 |
> > program. The language is introspective (aka introspective) so programs |
| 39 |
> > can learn about their own structure. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Perl is good for mostly the same reasons, which is why it's my current |
| 42 |
> language of choice. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> > But ultimately the only way to learn about programming is to read |
| 45 |
> > programs and work with masters in the field. It's still an art not a |
| 46 |
> > science. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I think I may have given a slightly wrong impression with my original email - |
| 49 |
I am a programmer or sorts, but have done nothing in either Linux or |
| 50 |
C/C++.... |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
This discussion seems to be leading towards the use of scripting (?) languages |
| 53 |
like Python and Perl, and more mentions of Python than anything else. I have |
| 54 |
to say that I like the idea of this, least of all because it will give me |
| 55 |
some ability to comment on portage and other Gentoo specifics. |
| 56 |
I like this idea, as for some reason it sounds less of a large slope to climb. |
| 57 |
If/when I get there, what are the GTK+2 and QT bindings like for Python? I'm |
| 58 |
mainly concerned about the speed and how similar it is to using C/C++ - it's |
| 59 |
quite probable that I'll want to learn either eventually. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Tom Wesley |
Archives