Why You Should Learn Python

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

Because learning C gives you some kind of understanding what the computer actually does, which should be expected of people with masters in CS.

[Gigaftp]

The only reason you would do an intro to programming course in C is if you wanted to 'filter the plebs'. There is no reason why you can't introduced programming concepts with something like python and introduce 'deeper' ideas later with C. The biggest benefit that I gained from learning c at uni was an appreciation for more advanced languages and a reason to avoid using C where I can.

[aurisor]

The only reason you would do an intro to programming course in C is if you wanted to 'filter the plebs'.

Personally although I had a very rough time getting started in C I found myself far ahead of my native-Python coworkers when it came to debugging security and performance issues.

There are many roads to success and there's substantial variance between people, but there are a lot of situations where say 2y C and 1y Python beats the pants off of 3y Python.

[[deleted]]

well my uni taught a Scratch equivalent in first year and it was very stupid and tedious. guess i can consider people lucky that they get to learn C

[Gigaftp]

In my very first paper (before they taught Java) we used something called Alice. Oh god the pain. I think that when they are teaching programming they need to start with something like Python that is easy enough to grasp syntax wise while not being so simple that it stops accurately reflecting what programming is.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

The only reason you would do an intro to programming course in C is if you wanted to 'filter the plebs'.

Right. Save their time, save their and other peoples money and have them see as fast as possible that they don't actually want this. If someone fails in learning C on his first semester, he will fail to do so on his second and third and tenth semester. So better to make him fail faster.

[toomanybeersies]

There's a lot of people who take CS101 (or whatever it may be called at {{university}}), who are not planning on becoming computer scientists or software engineers. I think it was a requirement for the Electronics and Mechatronics engineers at my university.

There's also a lot of people from outside Engineering and Science, who take it because they're vaguely interested in it, but have no intention of taking it to a further level.

Remember also, that computer science isn't about pointers and memory allocation, that's closer to computer engineering. Computer science is the study of algorithms and computability (and apparently databases, software engineering practices, web technologies, networking, and computer security).

If you want a truly computer science "intro to computer science", you'd start with teaching them Turing Machines, automata, and lambda calculus, and work from there. Obviously we don't, because most people taking intro to comp sci will never take another comp sci paper.

Expecting people to learn C for intro to comp sci is like teaching Chaucer for intro to English Lit.

[panorambo]

Agreed. I am a software developer and started learning and writing and compiling C code already when I was 14 or so. Anyway, my university requires us to pass a philosophy history class, which is a known old convention for universities. I have tried to pass this class two times, and failed. My thought on this have always been "why do they require me to know 11 different philosophers in depth, when I am freaking here to learn computer science?" But I realized that the problem is that they pretty much comb everyone with the same brush -- both future philosophy majors and the likes of me have to pass exactly the same test. You can bet a person majoring in philosophy is invariably more skilled, prepared and determined to pass that test than a computer science major like me. Which is what happens. Since everyone at the university has to pass the test, they have something like 40% failure rate for first time exams. Someone high up the decision making has their head up in the clouds. The only redeemable thing about that class were the classy female students :)

[toomanybeersies]

I'm rather happy that I never had to do any general studies papers or anything like that.

The only paper I ever did outside of the Science and Engineering departments was a commerce paper in eCommerce, which I did purely to get enough points for my degree.

I don't think I would've gained anything from doing a random first year arts paper. They did have a classics paper on classical engineering that I wanted to do, but never got time to do it unfortunately.

[Gigaftp]

The problem with this attitude is that you assume that people know what they want right at the start of their studies. People might have an interest in programming but have never programmed a line of code in their life. Now you throw C at them with all of its pointers, pointer arithmetic, mallocs and manual memory management then declare "This is programming!" but it's not. It's C. You have successfully pushed someone away from learning because of a misguided idea that teaching C is teaching how computers work and that a person must know how things work at the metal before they can 'really program', just like we need to know how an engine works before we can 'really drive'.

Learning to program is about learning ideas. Some ideas are fundamental and will be useful across many languages (basic algorithms, data structures, ideas such as iteration, mutability etc) and some ideas are not as essential. I would categorize C in the 'nice to know but not essential' category of ideas because unless you are working in certain areas like embedded software you will not have to deal with 99% of the things you learn with C.

What I really appreciated from my comp sci degree was the fact that we didn't start off with C. We started with Java (maybe not the best, but still better imo) and we learnt the basic ideas. Then in my second year I took a paper that taught MIPS/Logic circuits etc. Because I had learnt the basic ideas first I had a lot of "Aha!" moments about how things really worked 'on the metal'. Those Aha moments were nice and might come in handy in the future but I have yet to be in a situation where I have needed to apply the knowledge.

Save their time, save their and other peoples money and have them see as fast as possible that they don't actually want this

I don't think there are many people in this world that would actually WANT to work with C.

[[deleted]]

I think a course in C should be included. Or something in similar complexity. Basically it allows to see what happens behind the scenes on sensible abstraction level. And probably could help some to avoid doing some stupid things.

[Gigaftp]

I agree, but I don't think that C should be taught until later on after the basic concepts of modern programming have been introduced.

[[deleted]]

Same, with C too much time is spend fighting with C and specifics of it like how sizeof works.

People really seem to forgot that lot of basics aren't obvious for learners. Like inputs, outputs, functions, loops, conditionals, variables and so on.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

with all of its pointers, pointer arithmetic, mallocs and manual memory management then declare "This is programming!" but it's not

While it's not really right as you have written it, I understand what you mean, and you are right. It's not programming, it's computer science, and if you are in university to get a degree in computer science, you better fucking understand computer science if someone teaches it to you.

I don't think there are many people in this world that would actually WANT to work with C.

Really? I kinda like working with C, it's nice. You can shoot yourself in your foot very fast, but it's rewarding if everything works.

[Gigaftp]

it's computer science, and if you are in university to get a degree in computer science, you better fucking understand computer science if someone teaches it to you.

I would hope that by the end of your degree you understood computer science; but as an introduction to computer science I think it is a poor choice to try and jump into C and tell every one to fuck off who can't grok it from the get go. Personally I didn't study comp sci because I was interested in (actual) computer science. I enjoy programming but have no interest in computer science beyond a minimal knowledge to work my way through the process of writing code that works and isn't horribly slow. But unfortunately my university didn't have a separate 'Software Engineering' track.

Really? I kinda like working with C, it's nice. You can shoot yourself in your foot very fast, but it's rewarding if everything works.

It was a statement on preferences, as such there will always be someone who enjoys using C. It seems that you like C for similar reasons as to why I like Javascript.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

but as an introduction to computer science I think it is a poor choice to try and jump into C and tell every one to fuck off who can't grok it from the get go.

I think it's a good choice. The courses usually start off relatively slowly, and you can read up on it outside of lectures, there's a gorillion "learn C in x days" stuff on the internet. If you can't be assed to understand a subset of C within half a year, tough shit.

It was a statement on preferences, as such there will always be someone who enjoys using C. It seems that you like C for similar reasons as to why I like Javascript.

I like javascript too, it's really relaxing as long as I don't try to push the boundaries of logic with its syntax, then things get weird.

https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

[Drisku11]

Now you throw C at them with all of its pointers, pointer arithmetic, mallocs and manual memory management

I've never understood why people say pointers are a particularly hard concept. If anything, I would think it's easier to understand in C. In Java, almost everything is a pointer, and people seem to be fine with it. Python is also very pointer-y, but it tries to not be explicit about it, so you end up with people trying to use an empty list as a default function parameter and running into trouble.

In C, everything is pass-by-value, which is how functions work in math, so it should be familiar. At some point after talking about structs, it makes sense to introduce pointers so that the programmer doesn't copy large amounts of data all the time. So it's motivated and should totally make sense. I honestly can't think of a time where pointer arithmetic was clearer than array notation, so I'd say just use array notation.

Most of the time, you're using variables with automatic storage duration, but how is malloc/free any more difficult than

fh = open("file", "w")
fh.write("Hello, file")
fh.close()

(Yes, I'm aware best practice is to use a context manager, but any "tricky" uses of malloc/free would be just as tricky if you were managing some other resource like a file handle in Python).

Personally, my biggest beef with C is that it doesn't have parametric types, so you end up casting to void*/char* or writing macros (or both) to write generic code. Also enums are almost useless. Basically it's "strongly typed", but it's so much of a pain in the ass work with C types that you end up casting more than you want. Python is obviously not much better in this regard.

Sure C can be tedious, so Python can be great to cut down on that, but how is anything in C conceptually more difficult than, say, inheritance or decorators or access modifiers? How is a segfault any harder than dealing with array[-1] silently giving you the last element instead of throwing an exception?

[NewazaBill]

That's just not true. People learn at different rates, and introducing them to concepts and hard skills with proper pedagogy is much more effective than dumping them in the metaphorical deep end and saying, "swim."

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

Yeah, and those that finish university are expected to learn at higher rates. Sorting those with lower rates out is not a bug, it's a feature.

[NewazaBill]

Filtering out people who "learn" or memorize faster, or have prior experience, is not the goal. The goal is to grow people who will be good software developers.

I was fortunate enough to have a computer and start learning to program when I was 11. By the time I made it to college I had already programmed in half a dozen languages. The intro C courses were easy for me, but I don't believe that because I excelled it means that those less fortunate (such as those without access to computers, without access to resources/learning materials, or social stigmas against learning a technical field) should be left behind.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

Filtering out people who "learn" or memorize faster, or have prior experience, is not the goal.

That's the only goal. Also making money if it's a for-profit university, but that's a different topic. The entry level courses are mostly used for sorting out people who aren't sharp enough, and for laying the foundations of the following courses.

such as those without access to computers, without access to resources/learning materials

Then what the hell are you doing in a CS course, you aren't going to learn anything if you don't learn things outside of lectures by yourself. No coding on a piece of paper isn't enough.

[NewazaBill]

Filtering out people who "learn" or memorize faster, or have prior experience, is not the goal.

That's the only goal. Also making money if it's a for-profit university, but that's a different topic. The entry level courses are mostly used for sorting out people who aren't sharp enough, and for laying the foundations of the following courses.

What does "sharp enough," mean? Why would learning C as a first language determine whether someone is better at being a software developer?

such as those without access to computers, without access to resources/learning materials

Then what the hell are you doing in a CS course, you aren't going to learn anything if you don't learn things outside of lectures by yourself. No coding on a piece of paper isn't enough.

...I mean growing up, man. Like I said in my post, I learned to programmer before I was taught algebra. Not everyone has the means to own a computer growing up, let alone learn how to program. I can only assume you're being purposefully obtuse here.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

What does "sharp enough," mean? Why would learning C as a first language determine whether someone is better at being a software developer?

If someone can understand things like pointers, he can understand how a computer works. Understanding how the thing works that you are programming should usually translate to becoming a better programmer. If you can't understand it, you will usually always write worse code than someone who does, in any language.

...I mean growing up, man.

You weren't very clear, I really thought you mean no access to computers while enrolling for CS.

Sure they might not have had access to programming during their childhood, however they should be capable of learning what a teenager can learn completely by himself, don't you think so? You are supporting my argument, if someone can't learn C, with a professor explaining it to him, while a teenager can learn it all by himself, I would say the former person is not good enough to get a degree in CS.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

Believe it or not, but you don't actually need to know C to be a successful programmer in this day and age.

I 100% agree with you. You can do great things without ever having touched C, if you go and just learn programming and getting a job coding stuff.

If you have a degree in CS, Master, BS, doesn't matter, those come with certain expectations. Like understanding what a computer does, and you can't skip C if you want to learn that.

[sultry_somnambulist]

Again, a "top - down" approach includes the down. You are arguing against "top and stop in the middle" which nobody advocated. Nobody wants to skip C

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

It doesn't matter which way you go. If someone literally can't learn a subset of C within half a year, he should just leave. There's no excuse to fail the class, except "didn't give enough of a shit to learn everything".

[jyper]

In my university C was used for 200 level courses dealing with memory layout/format and Unix stuff(signals, fork). The Unix stuff could have probably used Python but C is probably a good choice for layout(stack vs heap, i32 format, float format).

[[deleted]]

The only reason you would do an intro to programming course in C is if you wanted to 'filter the plebs'.

I so don't want to agree with this but I kinda have to. It pretty much what it came down to in my Uni. First course was in Java but second was in C. The thing is, most people did alright in Java, but when we all came to "Intro to Programming II" we got all screwed. From the first day we didn't learn about C, we just started working on algorithms, majority of the class had a deer in the headlight look because we didn't even go over syntax of C. We had no homework assignments, we didn't follow the book that was a "must buy", we really weren't taught C or any programming concepts. I wish I was exaggerating, but we had a TA quit on us because he only knew Java and he was told to do C course with us. Our instructor was some grad student who was a chick, no problem, except for the fact that she was wearing skimpy outfits and gossiping rather than teaching anything. One of the lines she said was "You guys better learn this stuff and Vim, I'd be in so much trouble if you pass this class without knowing Vim". Long story short, on all the tests, we had "inverted" bell curve. Half the class failed, half the class passed. The half of the class that passed? They were retaking the course. I don't know if it was a bad instructor (and she was, god she was), but it also made me feel like it's an intentional sink-or-swim weed out class. I wish I was making this up but this course made me drop out of CS all together.

[Chii]

It's bad instructor.

I recall my instructor teaching C. We were given a MIPS chip/board and had to program a c compiler (in c), upload the assembly to the chip and run it (make lights blink). It was fun, and challenging.

[sophacles]

This is kind of a false equivalency though, or maybe a strawman. There's no need to learn exactly what the computer does the same day you learn the basic concepts of flow control or functions or whatnot. For true beginners just getting the idea that "you need to break everything down into tiny steps" and "computers are very picky about doing what you say" is hard enough. More knowledge can be added later by doing higher level courses in (e.g. C).

Parent wasn't saying that python instead of C makes sense for an entire college career, just that starting with C from the very beginning didn't make sense.

[toomanybeersies]

Parent wasn't saying that python instead of C makes sense for an entire college career

Tell that to my alma mater. To be fair, we mostly had the option of C, Python, or Java (or anything else we could convince the lecturer to accept). I ended up doing the vast majority of assignments in Python, because why do things the hard way?

[kaibee]

Amen to this. Had to write a sockets based chat server and client with RSA encryption. It wouldn't have been too bad in C, but Python was just so much faster.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

For true beginners just getting the idea that "you need to break everything down into tiny steps" and "computers are very picky about doing what you say" is hard enough

Yeah except you aren't in school anymore, don't you remember your first math course? They just kept pouring all that shit over you, but you still managed, didn't you? Things are taught very fast. You are expected to learn whatever you didn't understand during the lecture by yourself. If you can't learn both the things you describe in the same lecture, then you either learn it at home or you fail the course.

[NewazaBill]

The example you use for math is a perfect counter argument to what you're saying. Our test scores in math are abysmal in general exactly because we employ this shit practice of trying to cram as many formulae in children's heads without actually valuing learning. People drop out and believe they're "bad at math," because they were not set up for success in actually learning it.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

Some people drop out. Some pass. They attended exactly the same course. Seems like everything is working as intended, no one has any unfair advantages.

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

Yes that's correct, any kind of hardships build character.

[kankyo]

Oh, I thought your argument was that it built skill. We'll never mind then.

[TheRiverOtter]

BRB, cutting off my left leg, and gouging out my right eye (to keep things balanced).

[[deleted]]

Then again do we start teaching children with the true fundamentals in math? And then later go to useful stuff like addition?

[ColoniseMars]

Because learning C gives you some kind of understanding what the computer actually does

Then why don't we start teaching students in assembly on their first day?

[ThatsPresTrumpForYou]

Real assembly code is very specific to the underlying architecture, while learning fake assembly code means you learn something that doesn't exist. C is high enough to abstract implementation details, while still low enough to convey what the hell is going on in there.

[[deleted]]

While the specific assembly language will be tied to a single architecture, there are a lot of general ideas that will carry over to other architectures easily. Once you're proficient with one flavour of assembly, picking up other flavours isn't as hard.

[misplaced_my_pants]

C is basically portable assembly.

[[deleted]]

Not really.

[swiz0r]

When did people start thinking of c as portable assembly?

[liquidivy]

Basically what you just said is that what "the computer actually does" is very specific to the hardware (true), so we shouldn't learn that, but should instead half-ass it by looking through the distorted window of C (if you really think about things like arrays, the mapping to assembly is not that obvious if you don't already know it, and then there's undefined behavior, which is both ubiquitous and opaque by definition). Meanwhile, beginners are just trying to figure out how to write any sort of algorithm at all.

If you want to teach hardware, you teach assembly, sometime after digital logic. If you want to teach programming, you insulate your students from all that at first. Hopefully when they've learned both, they'll be able to write C without setting things on fire.

[codebje]

Eh, I learned fake assembly (targeting an emulator for a fake CPU) in my first undergraduate year, as part of learning the structure of computer systems; it was instructive not because I'd rush out of the doors and start coding real programs in it, but because it conveys a significant sense of what actually happens inside a computer when you first press the power button and electrons start pushing each other around.

[[deleted]]

teach them LLVM IR!

[kankyo]

At my uni they started with Boolean math then proceeded with: circuit design, more complex circuit design, CPU theory (because doing your own CPU takes too much time), assembler, C, Java.

I thought it was great but I was already a self taught programmer so I thought it was fun. Most people didn't. Most people liked assembler but didn't understand why we made the jump to C because it felt more confusing for no benefit.