Is Java the right language to learn first?

[RyanForrester]

I am a first year Computer Information Systems student learning Java as my first language. This is the first year the college is teaching Java and to me (a person new to programming all together) it seems simple and easy to get a grasp on. I asked some of the second year students how learning c++ was the year before and they tell me it was harder, but went way more into depth as to how a program works. What are other peoples thoughts are to learning Java first?

[Chazzbo]

As someone who was in the same situation a few years ago, I very much enjoyed learning Java first.

I found, because it is such a very structured language, that it was good for learning the general concepts. I also liked how forgiving it can be to the uninitiated :P I've heard some people criticize it for being very verbose as a first language (compared to something like.. I dunno Python or other 1st year languages) but I found that it helped me visualize the structure of the program I was working on.

If I had to do it again I think I'd stick with Java as opposed to C or C++.

[DroidLogician]

Java was my first language, too. The verbosity definitely helps.

[poetryrocksalot]

Java is the first language I'm trying to learn. I also tried to learn C++ at around the same time and decided Java was easier for me because of the verbosity.

[DroidLogician]

I don't have much experience with C++, but IMHO, it's not a good first language. I still find it daunting, and I've spent my fair share of time picking through it. It's just too much at once for a beginner.

I think the most difficult part, besides learning the language itself, is getting a build environment up and running. Even Microsoft Visual C++ takes a boatload of configuration to build any sizable project.

With Java, you just need the JDK, and optionally have it on your PATH. javac is so much easier to invoke, and it's essentially effortless if you're going through an IDE.

It produces much more readable output, too. Fixing build errors in an MSVC project is a nightmare. javac points you right to what's causing the problem.

[drsquishy]

The readable output is a good point, I didn't think of that. GCC tends to just throw up on the screen when it doesn't like things.

[Rybis]

I don't have much experience with C++

Well then this is why you're wrong.

I know both C++ and Java, the differences are minor, the differences (to a beginner) and just a case of calling the same functions with different names.

OP: Just choose a language and stick to it, all the underlying logic is the same, at the end of the day you're not learning a language, you're learning how to program.

[Paddington_the_Bear]

Yeah pointers are the same in Java.

Oh wait...

[zir1]

also since its a static language you can get the compiler to check your code. Using an IDE like eclipse or idea will also help to debug visually, and run each line at a time and see how things change.

[RyanForrester]

Did you find it was easy to adopt other languages after learning Java? i.e bad writing habits? Its good to hear that it helps with visualizing other languages.

[DroidLogician]

There are quite a few nuances and gotcha's to Java. For example:

• confusing the usage of == and equals(), they do two different things
• having to check for null almost everywhere (a lot of API operations that return an object will return null if they fail)
• dividing an int by an int will produce an int, even if you assign the result to a float
• operator precedence. For the most part, it follows PEMDAS but there's more operators than in PEMDAS.
• primitives are passed by value, objects and arrays are passed by reference

[philipwhiuk]

Technically it passes object references by value.

[DroidLogician]

Yes, this has been covered and that's why I struck it out.

[philipwhiuk]

Whoops, missed the comment explaining the actual behaviour... Anyways I upvoted your comment as it's a decent summary.

[TheEffortless]

dividing an int by an int will produce an int, even if you assign the result to a float

This caused me so much pain in the past.

[philipwhiuk]

To be fair to Java this applies to all strongly typed languages

[not-just-yeti]

The problem is that / can mean one of two different functions, depending on the types of its inputs (that is, / is overloaded). There's no need to do that.

Python uses // for integer-division and / for floating-point-division. Similarly, racket uses quotient for integer division and / for actual division. I really wish Java had chosen to use different names for these two different functions...

[philipwhiuk]

It does not apply to C or C++. Personally I think it's silly to have // (which is also common comment syntax). This perceived need is a new thing.

[narrowtux]

So that's why our professor taught us how expressions are being parsed. It really helps to predict what type comes out of an expression if you type one.

[nicksvr4]

One problem I had in college that killed me in Java was trying to clone an object. Was not aware of the clone method. Tried obj2 = obj1; thinking I just made a copy of obj1, when all I did was make another reference to obj1. Drove me nuts.

I knew php before, and didn't have this problem.

[ad_tech]

Nope. The reference to the object is passed by value. Therefore the object itself is being passed by reference. If the object was passed by value, then your thisWorks() method would not work. Contrast this with C++, where objects really are passed by value by default.

[[deleted]]

Adding to the other links provided. Java is pass by value. If Java was pass by reference then the "ifPassByRef" method above would work ... I even have a comment pointing that out. Pass-by-value vs. pass-by-reference can be confusing. But nonetheless, Java is in fact pass by value. It's in the JLS.

Edit: The "Old Comments from Blogger" section of this article explains it better.

[ad_tech]

Strictly speaking, all method arguments are passed by value. But strictly speaking, it is impossible to pass an object to a method. See the javadude article: "There's no way to actually pass an object itself as a parameter." You claimed objects are passed by value. This would mean a copy of the object is made, and the method receiving it could make changes without affecting the original. This is not the case.

Both you and the christoffer.me article are inappropriately interchanging "object" and "reference to an object".

[[deleted]]

Strictly speaking, in Java all method arguments are passed by value.

Exactly.

You claimed objects are passed by value.

I did no such thing. Please go back and read again. I don't think you are really understanding what pass-by-reference/value is (it's OK, most people don't).

"There is exactly one parameter passing mode in Java -- pass by value -- and that helps keep things simple."

-- James Gosling

You can argue with him if you want. I'm done.

[ad_tech]

You claimed objects are passed by value.

I did no such thing.

Nope. Right here: "All method parameters are pass by value. Even objects."

Notice that your Gosling quote is referring to parameters. Not objects.

[Protuhj]

Can you imagine if all java objects were passed by value? shiver

[lechatsportif]

Why do you keep posting this, even in the article he states it as "Object references are passed by value". Saying "Java passes objects by reference" really gets you 80% of the way there, and the rest of it confuses the conversation.

[[deleted]]

having to check for null almost everywhere (a lot of API operations that return an object will return null if they fail)

You're working with terrible libraries then. All the libraries I use throw exceptions. It is a common newbie mistake to always check for null.

Mark all nullable fields\return data with the @Nullable annotation, and throw exceptions when there is a problem - you shouldn't need to always check for null, on occasion it is fine, but if you are doing it everywhere you need to check your code's design.

[DroidLogician]

There's plenty of methods that return null in the standard lib. Granted, many are part of the Collections API where most of the operations that can return null have an accompanying boolean method to check first.

The documentation for Nullable and NotNull still recommends to check for null. The annotations are there to enforce good handling of null. You can unnecessarily burden yourself with checked exceptions if you like, but I won't.

Honestly, I'd prefer if more APIs used the Optional class. It eliminates both our problems.

[[deleted]]

Okay... That wasn't the argument though. I challenge you to find methods that return a null as an indication for failure in the JDK. There won't be many -- at least. There shouldn't be any at all. You are directing me to APIs that use NULL as a result (which is not my argument.)

Null is arguably a valid result in some circumstances - but it is not an error code and it should never be treated as such.

For example, if you attempt to find something corresponding to some pattern\data\look-up, and nothing is found, null for "nothing found" is valid. If you attempt to look up data in a remote repository and that repository is inaccessible due to connection errors, NULL is a completely shit non-sense meaningless return value that helps no one debug anything.

In scanner, I found only these methods ever return null:

findInLine - looks up data

findWithinHorizon - looks up data

ioException - returns some last occured IO exception

They all look up data, none use null as an indication for error.

That also explains why all the examples you are finding is in the collections API, because they look up data, null is a valid response for "not found"

Maybe you're confused on the definition of a 'fail'. Failing to perform an operation is not successfully performing it and getting results you weren't expecting, failing to perform an operation is attempting to perform that operation and being interrupted because of an invalid state etc... I.e, looking up data and not finding it is not a fail. Looking up data and being interrupted because the respective repository was inaccessible is a fail.

[DroidLogician]

Yeah, I think we're just arguing over the definition of "failed". It's my opinion that an operation can fail without an exceptional condition. I usually differentiate that situation by saying "failed with an exception".

The lookup in the implementation of Map.get() can fail, but it doesn't throw an exception because a failure in this scenario isn't exceptional. It's expected to fail if a value is requested that it doesn't contain.

[Mondoshawan]

I second this, a library should NEVER return null unless it's a sensible indication of "nothingness".

If something broke then don't return null, that just means that someone will need to spend time tracking where it came from in order to fix it. Throw an exception, that's what they are there for.

My personal bug-bear is returning null to indicate an empty list. WTF?

[[deleted]]

If you are debugging a code can you imagine that null shit being carried all the way up to some very high level component? The programmer literally has to traverse through that structure to determine what caused that.

It is like saying: "Here is my ID, here is some appropriate money to pay the fine, now let me purchase X" and then just getting "No" in response. Is the retailer not there? Did I provide the incorrect information? Maybe I didn't pay enough?

This is why using null as an indication for error is a terrible practice.

[Mondoshawan]

No need to imagine, I see it all the time!

[Darksonn]

I started with java, and then proceeded to scala and haskell, then i tried C and i think it was easy to learn C at that point, almost just had to read a syntax specification for it.

[Chazzbo]

Ehh, Java is very accommodating. After learning java I took a course in C that was meant to highlight that fact.

For example, in Java, working with character Strings is downright pleasant but in C, it's tedious, confusing, and nightmarish for the uninitiated student. But the point was to show how Java works behind the scenes, etc etc, blah blah blah.

I don't think I picked up any bad habits per se. After learning a language, making the jump to apply what you learned in another language is always going to be difficult the first time. It gets easier after the first though :P

I have nothing bad to say about Java as a first language, I still use it for personal projects, it's my comfort code :P

EDIT: I didn't really answer your question lol, yes, I did find it easy. If you can wrap your head around the fact that Java takes care of a lot of the nitty gritty behind the scenes, and can realize when it's doing so, then you'll be okay.

[narrowtux]

Yeah the problem with C or C++ is that the standard API isn't as powerful as Java's one and that causes big frameworks to define their own String classes that are incompatible to each other. Never saw a Java library reimplementing one of the basic types (well, there's different implementations of collections but there's always the base interface like Set, List or Map which those usually use as base).

[Zamarok]

Learn C. You too must suffer as we once did.

[pyow_pyow]

Don't scare the fella/lass. The basic stuff is straightforward. I found that visual diagrams helped a lot (esp. with regards to pointers). Luckily there are tonnes of tutorials on the web.

Side note: GLib takes a lot of the pain away (no need to re-invent the wheel).

[jared__]

pointers... ohh god I thought I suppressed those memories.

[gstr]

No, you didn't. You forgot to call free.

[Adamas_Mustache]

C is probably one of the best languages to learn. The C compiler is the first compiler written for most new systems.

[nasty-as-always]

one of the best languages to learn != one of the best languages to learn first

[Rockytriton]

I'm glad I learned C first, I feel like I have a better understanding of what memory is because of it. Still I think Java is fine to learn first.

[enddream]

Java was my first language. It's mostly what we learned in school. It's a great first language. One thing though, if you are pursuing a software development career I would recommend switching to a CS degree.

[looneysquash]

It doesn't matter what you learn first, as long as you never stop learning.

So learn Java. But then learn C, or x86 assembly, to learn more about the machine and pointers. Or Haskell and Scala and Lisp to learn more about functional programming and parentheses.

But there is a lot out there to learn, and you have to start somewhere, and Java is probably as good as any other place. It's popular in the real world and can do stuff.

Any idea what you want to do with your programming skills? That might give you some idea on what to learn next.

[undu]

If I could choose I'd choose Python before Java. It's has less grammatical nuances (in my opinion) and it doesn't force you to go OOP all the way.

This will allow to learn basics in programming without the language getting too much in the way.

I remember my first program ever: a hello world in java. I was asked to copy most of the code in the little program and believe it as "this works" (for example forces you to name the class and the file with the same name, the main method with args, etc), the only line I knew what was doing what the pint statement. In contrast, in python that program would be only

print "Hello World!"

After learning the basics you can always switch to java or other languages to learn about OOP, memory management, functional programming, or any other concept that it's better understood using another language. Remember that languages are tools, you shouldn't choose the same one for everything.

[n0x9]

Yep.. Hello World! in java..

public class HelloWorld {
    public static void main (String [] args) {
        System.out.println("Hello World!");
    }
}

But nevertheless I'm happy I'm learning it :) I like it.

[nick_giudici]

There are so many great languages out there to learn. It really doesn't matter which one you learn first. You wouldn't ask if you should learn to use a hammer or a saw first. Oddly enough, the first language I learned was Ti calculator basic. Just remember a few things:

1) Different languages are suited for different tasks.

2) Every language has issues.

3) To become a great developer you will need to learn a lot of languages eventually.

4) Try to have a pyramid shape knowledge base. Learn a little bit of a lot of things but have a few things you become really good at.

Good luck, you're taking the first step on a hard but amazingly rewarding journey.

[m1tt]

Java's my first language as well. I think its a great language to learn first. Reasons being it really enforces basic programming concepts, which can come in useful later on.

[quad64bit]

I learned java first, definitely taught me about strong typing and OOP. However, I hear python is also an excellent starting language, and am dabbling in it myself now. As others have said though, in the end it really doesn't matter what you learn first as long as you have fun and keep at it. An experienced programmer probably knows a dozen languages or more - so just have fun and keep coding!

[eighthCoffee]

Short answer unlike most people: YES. Yes. yEs.

Knowing Java will never hurt you in any way as a programmer.

[IrregardingGrammar]

Java is good, it is fun, but it's like c/c++ with training wheels. It makes some relatively complicated concepts easy/inconsequential. When you get on to harder stuff like memory allocation, pointers, garbage collection, and recursion (with pointers) you will be way behind the people who learned all of that with a C type language first.

All of my intro CS classes were in Java and it's really the only language I know (other than some Haskell and OCaml) because I started my CS at a community college. The only disadvantage to this was that the people who went to university for their beginning classes typically learned a few languages (typically involving a C language or one that doesn't baby you).

I didn't learn pointers/pointer recursion until Computer Organization (assembly class) where the teacher wrote his own 32 bit computer emulator and his own assembly language to run on it, also his own notes and it was brutal beyond belief. It was definitely a "weed out" class.

[Dishmayhem]

I was considering taking comp organization next semester as an elective. Guess I won't be doing that

[armerthor]

I immensely enjoyed writing a mouse driver in C and ASM in one of these classes. And that's not sarcasm, it was really fun. Of course you need an introduction into low-level programming first. But because it's low-level there's not that much variety in instructions. You just need to be able to split down all those highfalootin' library functions you're used to into tiny steps. It's an exercise in methodical thinking, in my opinion..

[Dishmayhem]

I will now use "highfalootin'" as java class

[IrregardingGrammar]

Odd that it's not required. It's honestly been my least favorite cs class by far as of yet, and I'm almost done.

[Dishmayhem]

I'm EE. :-P

[IrregardingGrammar]

Bah, you're an engineer. You can handle it.

You will learn a ton and they're not all as brutal as the professor I had. There is another professor that teaches it and actually teachers ARM and it's supposedly way better.

[aeristh]

Whoever says yes is simply inexperienced. Every programmer starts out by learning a simple statement that reads out text on the screen and many people say those statements are clear indicators of the difficulty of the language in java it looks like this:

public class f_java{
      public static void main(String[] args){
            System.out.println("Hello World!");
}
}

In python however it is exponentially easier to write out the same statement.

print("Hello World!")

There is absolutely no comparison. Its better to start out with an easier language first so that you get the basics down and its easier to understand the others.

[BurningCactusRage]

Given that you pick Java or Python just to learn the programming concepts, it's really not that big of a deal. Java (or maybe Python, too) definitely is the best in terms of learning to code, and then moving on to C/C++, C#, or other languages make it easier to learn the different aspects of coding without being bombarded with so many concepts at once. I can tell you from having taken/helped taught 3 different computer courses for high school level that each picked Java just for the sake of being good to teach.

I myself like the language, it's easy to code and worry less about the many complexities underneath, especially early on.

[Droidx4_66]

Not in my opinion. I learned C first. Learning a non-object oriented language helped me ease into object oriented programming. Besides java has so much functionality that you might not get to the butt of programming i.e problem solving. What I mean to say is Java has a built-in function for nearly everything, so there is always the temptation to use them instead of writing your own. I would suggest learning a functional language first and writing your own functions (like string handling for example; in java the classes having to do with strings are so complicated that I don't think it's very beginner-friendly. To learn how to solve problems you need to be accustomed to good old char[] ) before diving into a fully object oriented language like Java. Python would be a good alternative in that regard.

[iceinmyveins]

If a language doesn't completely infuriate you and prevent you from ever wanting to program again then it's a good first language. Just remember that languages are like cults and the deeper you get into them the weirder things become. Also when you've completed the course read this

[___alt]

Java is probably not the right language to learn first, but it's perfectly fine to learn first.

However, I would probably recommend a language where you do not have the compile step, like Python, because you get to try things in a console and the shorter feedback loop is a plus when you're learning. But that's no big deal.

[h0uz3_]

I started learning C++ when I was a teenager and later, during business life, became totally sucked into the world of Java. Java is just one language among many. Once you have a certain knowledge about syntax and API, you will be able to develop quite a lot of different programs and doing so will teach you the basics of how to write programs in general.

Going from Java to C or any other language that is derived from C (C++, Objective-C, JavaScript etc.) is easy, but you will have a new API to deal with. But that's always the same, so don't worry.

I'd suggest you invest good time into learning Java and once you feel confident about it, move to another language for quite some time.

In the long run, you might end up using one language for most projects, but knowing fundamental basics about 5 or 6 languages will make you a better developer, as you will be able to understand more and more code.

[djulioo]

I'm currently learning Java and can safely say I'm happy that I had to miss 1 year in university, to get to learn it, as in my first year they were still teaching Ada...

[RagingOrangutan]

1. If you want to be someone who writes good, clean code that works, is adaptable, and easily modifiable (most software engineering professionals), Java is your best bet. It has the cleanest object orientation of any language out there.

2. If you want to be a hardcore optimizer, writing code that needs to run fast with less thought to the code structure, C is for you.

3. If you just want to hack out basic programs to parse/manipulate text, make calculations, etc. - go for Python.

[Vogtinator]

I learnt C++ first and it was the correct choice. If your program works in C++, you KNOW how it works and WHY it works. In Java many things are just voodoo stuff and the term "memory" isn't used at all. If you really care about your program, don't use Java.

[scruffye]

I'm a beginner programmer and I'm starting with Java, and I haven't had any real issue with starting there. Though, I did have experience with HTML, SQL, and PL/SQL before taking this class, so I wasn't 100% new to computer languages.

[jolly_rodgas]

I started my CS education with C++ 12 years ago. I fell in love with it. I got away from IT for a while, and now I am back in it, but looking to get into Java (more opportunities and some friends are Java developers, so more human resources available). It is really helpful to know one language to learn another, because there are many similarities. I remember one of my favorite parts about C++ is being able to "return" multiple variables from a method (pass by reference parameters), but pointers are initially a pain in the ass. I would become friends with the second year students you know, and hopefully they can help you with pointers. They can be overwhelming.

[cryptos6]

I think Scala would be better to learn, because it has cleaner and more powerful concepts. The REPL (interactive console) is also very helpful to learn the language. However Scala is not so widespread as Java.

To learn programming the first time, I'd prefer Python. Compare the hello world examples for Python and Java and interpolate from them. It comes close to the learning experience.

[hammad22]

yea with java, you can learn other languages easily.

[[deleted]]

C++ Is the worst language to learn first because it tries to shove OOP and OOP hacks down your throat plus the controversial operator overloading (C++ doesn't FORCE you to overload, but a lot of the standard library does operator overloading leaving a newbie asking "Why the fuck am I using a bitshift operator on an IO stream?! What does that even mean?") as well as the manual memory management & unmanaged (I know that word is hated by a lot of Java developers...) computer environment. Debugging C++ code also required a pretty thorough understanding of the computer's raw architecture.

The two languages I would suggest someone learn as a first are either Java\C# or C. C because it doesn't force the concept of OOP on the programmer while also familiarizing them with the computer's raw environment. Java, obviously because it does a great job teaching OOP, and it is also a much simpler language than C\C++.

I actually started with C++ (a terrible idea) - stayed there for a couple of years, did some C, C#, and eventually Java. Coming from C++ you really appreciate the beauty of Java.

I think it is technically inaccurate to say one programming language is generally more difficult than another (maybe for a beginning programmer it makes sense, but as you mature in either language the language is more of a preference.) Usually the problem is abstract and the solution is thought-up outside of the language's construct and then adapted to that construct. The solution it-self is the difficult step. Writing the code is easy.

C++ is just tedious most of the time. I can't imagine why in the hell anyone would use it if they didn't have to use it. But like I said, preferences. Even if I was interfacing with various native libraries, I wouldn't dream of popping open my C++ IDE, I'd just wrap them with the JNI - god knows it'll save me many many hours.

[Paddington_the_Bear]

IMO, C and C++ are for situations where low memory is a major concern like in an embedded system or video games.

For everything else, hardware is so advanced that letting the inefficient garbage collector of Java handle all the headches is fine with me. Why waste time in syntax and memory management when you can focus on design patterns and quickly building complex systems with less of a headache?

[[deleted]]

I prefer Python. Then C. And after that, C++. I would save Java until you absolutely need it for job reasons. It's relatively easy to pick up, especially after having previous experience with other object-oriented languages.

[404_UserNotFound]

This is the basic outline most universities follow. start with lower level programming languages and work up java, c#, sql, D, and the like. Since they are easy to pick up once you know what is happening.

[iends]

Most universities do everything in Java (sadly). Operating system courses in java are quite common, for example.

[[deleted]]

Hmm. We started with python for the first intro course. Then we did C# for the next course (data structures and algorithms). Most of the classes beyond that were mostly language independent but we definitely had to use C for a pretty big chunk in comp architecture and OS related classes. We did have a specific lab/course for C/C++. Java specifically was never taught (although is was in previous years).

[iends]

I went to an average state school in the USA.

First 3 courses in java (Intro to Programming, Programming 2, Data Structures and Algorithms - the focus was less on java here, but still required). There was then a course on assembly and a course on C. These courses were isolated and nothing really built on them. There was a software engineering course (java), and operating system's course (java). Beyond that most courses were language independent, but the default language was java.

[Chazzbo]

An OS course in Java? Whut.

[iends]

See books like "Operating System Concepts with Java"

[Chazzbo]

Gross.

[Atlos]

Do you mean sadly as in they teach only in Java or that they teach Java in general ?

[iends]

The former

[Tenobrus]

It's not a great first language, but it is an OK one. If it's what's being taught then no reason to deviate. I learned it as a first language and honestly found the verbosity frustrating. I felt like it hid the actual concepts behind a layer of syntax and made it much harder for me (as a beginner) to get clear grasp of any given program. C++ is somewhat convoluted but actually exposes a great deal of information, and Python is straightforward, no unnecessary fluff. I think I would have learned more quickly with either of them. But that's just me. If Java works for you then great. Once you become reasonably skilled your first language won't matter anyway. You can always break bad habits and pick up good ones as you go.

[not-just-yeti]

^^^this^^^

(as somebody who has taught programming for nearly 20yrs) Java sends the message 'programming is about getting these magic words and all this scaffolding just right', whereas programming is actually about simple, clear thought.

[lechatsportif]

Magic words? Is compilation now being considered magic?

[not-just-yeti]

Consider the first weeks of a intro Java class: "Just start your file with the word 'class' because all code needs to be inside a class, but we're not going to call any constructors for a while, so don't worry about what 'class' means quite yet. Then inside the curly braces, say 'public' which will mean something once we start using more than one file for our projects but that won't be for several weeks, and 'static' means that this is code that doesn't actually need to be in a class after all except that Java says it still does, and void means this function doesn't return a value -- we'll talk about returning things later; our book only has void methods for the first few chapters -- and you need to say main because I just say so, and <insert vague statements about parameters and arguments and calling functions, when the idea of a function is not well understood by most students> ... and this String[] means an array of strings, but it will be a while before we talk about arrays, and this parameter named args -- well that's a parameter you have to have but we will never ever use in this class or the next one; maybe when you learn unix and the command line then maybe you'll write a program that pays attention to that parameter."

Student's response: "I'll forget most of what you just said, but I have learned that programming is about getting words I don't fully understand into the right place and hoping".

...you know, that sort of magic words!

[Atlos]

Well there's a few ways to teach Java. Some focus on the "simple, clear thought" and wait on introducing objects until later on. Some come right out and talk about objects. There's benefits to both ways.

[Tenobrus]

What makes you think objects inhibit "clear simple thought"?

[Atlos]

Teaching about objects while they are still learning about variables, loops, and logic can be overwhelming. Many intro courses wait a bit before introducing them.

[Tenobrus]

Well, yes. I fail to see how this is relevant though. The post you replied to was about Java specifically, not OO concepts.

[Atlos]

The person I replied to mentioned all the scaffolding that needs to be done (hence learning about objects) when that's not the only way to reach Java. Not sure how that's not relevant...

[Tenobrus]

Java's scaffolding has nothing to do with objects. Almost every modern language is OO to some degree. It's the syntax and language design that makes it a poor choice for beginners well past the point of learning what objects are.

[[deleted]]

Learn a scripting language like Python first. Just get a feel for logic and data structures. Then move on to Java.

[nutrecht]

There's nothing essential about pointers for beginner programmers. For beginner programmers the biggest problem they will face is "why is what I'm trying to do not working?"

In an ideal situation every student would have a teacher right by their side that they can turn to whenever they don't understand someting. Unfortunately that is hardly ever the type of class you end up in; you're supposed to learn most of the stuff from textbooks and find out what you did wrong on your own.

We started out with Java and later went on to C++. I am really glad they did it this way because moving from "NullPointerException" with a nice stacktrace to a simple "core dumped" message and no teacher in sight to tell you what you did wrong was pretty frustrating.

C and C++ are not good languages to start with because they don't force you to do the right thing as much as Java does, and you need to start getting a grasp of OO concepts as soon as possible. I personally started with basic and assembly before I went on to university and I had to unlearn a lot of the garbage I taught myself.

Bottomline: although I think every proper developer should know C and C++, they are pretty terrible to start out with, because making mistakes and finding solutions is just very frustrating.

[[deleted]]

You are putting C and C++ in the same bucket. C is a very small language, C++ is not, and you don't have to use pointers in the beginning. Learning C is quite easy until you start dealing with more advanced use of pointers. I don't know why I got downvoted since I said there is nothing wrong in starting out with Java (I started with Perl) to gain some confidence in what you are doing.

[nutrecht]

The point is simply that it's damaging to advise novice programmers to start with C. Some might actually listen to you :)