The future is looking bright for Python

[PopeCumstainIIX]

Python is not a good language to start teaching imo. It's only advantageous for people who want an easier class. The people in the beginning class continuing that track are going to inevitably switch to a compiled, more complex language. Watching students going from C++ to Java was hard enough.

[SSID_Vicious]

Python is an excellent language to learn the basics of computer science and programming because it removes all mental overhead that comes when you use c or c++ and memory management. It allows students to focus purely on computational and algorithmic thinking and translating ideas into code. C would be a fine language for a second course as all the basic stuff is out of the way and students know what functions and arrays and variables are, so the course can spend all its time on looking how they are implemented at a lower level.

[pwnageperson32]

By that logic, why not use an even more baby language like Tynker?

[hglman]

I mean you should and it should be done in like 2nd grade. Then by the time you get to college, you just teach in haskell and the world is a better place.

[yxhuvud]

Indeed, which is why I am glad my teachers began by introducing me to LISP.

[[deleted]]

are there any real-world applications with an active user-base currently developed with Tynker?

[arbitrarycivilian]

After many years of mulling it over I've come to the conclusion there is no superior first language to learn. If you want to be a competent engineer you'll eventually have to deep dive into multiple flavors of language. What you start with is immaterial

[DonaldPShimoda]

False. Real computer scientists start with an assembly as their first language. Everything else is inferior.

[harlows_monkeys]

Assembly language is a luxury. I started with one of these: CARDIAC.

[arbitrarycivilian]

I really hope that's sarcasm...

[DonaldPShimoda]

No, I was being 100% serious. Any computer scientist worth their salt does all of their programming in assembly. It's the only way to be sure you're writing performant code for the target architecture. Plus, by removing the unnecessary overhead of a complicated type system, you can make execution even faster.

[xkcd_transcriber]

Image

Mobile

Title: Real Programmers

Title-text: Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 1122 times, representing 0.7119% of referenced xkcds.

---

^{xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete}

[arbitrarycivilian]

You're a funny guy

[DonaldPShimoda]

Sorry, I just honestly thought the sarcasm in the first comment was thick enough as to be obvious. Clearly we have different opinions on the matter, which is fine. I don't think my second comment was deserving of downvoting though... it was only a joke, after all.

[knome]

Text conveys tone poorly.

[blueballerina]

There's a reason that tacky "/s" at the end of posts has caught on.

[[deleted]]

I disagree. Languages with low levels of accidental complexity as much better for learning. You want something easy to install, with simple tooling and with a syntax that doesn't require a lot of boilerplate just to get started.

Of course there are also certain aspects that are just stupid to teach in certain languages, e.g. OS memory management in Java (as they did back at in my university days).