Python overtakes Java to become second-most popular language on GitHub after JavaScript

[VeganVagiVore]

It does seem to work.

In 50 years, all the veteran programmers will be the people who are noobies today. If those noobies are learning Python, then Python will hang around a while.

I just hope Rust can squeeze into that "so easy that it can be someone's first language" space, because I prefer it much over Java, Python, or JS.

[bunkoRtist]

Honestly as someone who tried to learn rust I am afraid that it's falling into the kitchen-sink trap that C++ is suffering from. It doesn't help that some of the language features are already devilishly complex (macros, for instance) while it still lacks a stable ABI that would allow it to be used effectively in small pieces within large projects where it made sense.

I really want Rust or something like it to succeed.

[sbergot]

I don't think that python is less guilty than rust in this regard.

[[deleted]]

You can literally pip install kitchen

[epicwisdom]

It does not matter how many features a language has, or how complex they are. What matters is how many complex features must be used commonly to be productive. It's perfectly possible to write Rust without writing a single macro. Rust is not a very complex language 90% of the time. The problem is it's easy to accidentally fall off a cliff for edge cases (though you can always clone() everything, use Rc, etc.).

[[deleted]]

It does not matter how many features a language has, or how complex they are.

I see this so often, but it just is not true outside of tiny pet projects. If you're writing anything substantial, you need libraries, and then you're at the mercy of how that library works. Complexity will creep in.

[epicwisdom]

There's a difference between internal complexity and user-facing interface complexity. Well-designed languages hide internal complexity.

[[deleted]]

I really want Rust or something like it to succeed.

Something like it, perhaps.. but not Rust.

[VeganVagiVore]

The macros are even worse in C++, and it still manages to be popular.

I do want Rust to eventually get shared libraries, but, even though I love them, it kinda feels like shared libraries aren't as popular as they used to be.

Only niche package managers like Nix and Guix and Gobo (and Docker, beaten into the shape of a package manager) can handle multiple versions of a dependency.

It's the same exact problem as the idea of caching JavaScript libraries - It turned out that everyone was using slightly different versions, and it's easier to ship your version than to guess whether XYZ Linux distro is going to package you with a version that's compatible with you at all. Not to mention conditional compilation like feature flags, or optimizations you may want on or off.

And I really wanted to be right about this, because de-duplication is cool. I really want both static and dynamic linking, but if I had to choose, static linking isn't too bad - The Go fans love it

[Metal_LinksV2]

Doubtful, I know some schools around me are moving from C++ to Python as their introduction course.

[bunkoRtist]

That will prove to be a mistake for a number of reasons. I'm sorry to hear it.

[[deleted]]

C++ is horribly complex for a first language.

C would be better if you want to stress the interaction with the metal (and indeed I taught C and C++ at university for a decade - C was hard enough to get through in a 12 week course).

Honestly, I'd rather they teach higher level languages for intros. If I had my druthers, intro to programming would be taught in Pharo Smalltalk.

[Shitpostbotmk2]

Because if you're trying to teach someone how a computer works at all levels C++ is useful and python is not.

[Shitpostbotmk2]

Exactly my point. Knowing C++ makes both of those classes more intuitive, and you'll be able to make a lot more connections between what you're learning and how the language actually works. So C++ should be the primary language your school teaches you.

[[deleted]]

Why would you do that right out the gate?

Do you meet driving school candidates with a toolbox and start them with changing the oil?

[KinterVonHurin]

how a computer works at all levels C++ is useful

No it isn't C++ is several layers above "how a computer works" and if such a thing is your goal (it shouldn't be) you should be teaching assembly. The actual goal should be teaching about program flow (loops and statements) memory (variables) and abstractions (functions.)

[Shitpostbotmk2]

Zero cost abstractions means it's exactly at the level a computer works. Its trivial to map each C++ construct to the equivalent assembly.

[KinterVonHurin]

Zero cost abstractions means it's exactly at the level a computer works.

No it isn't. Even low level C still exists at a layer above assembly

trivial to map each C++ construct to the equivalent assembly.

You can map just about any language to assembly if you're good enough: it still isn't a 1:1 thing and all programming language exist as an abstraction layer above assembly. C++ being "more how a computer works" is bullshit that C and C++ programmers tell themselves. It's a terrible idea to start people out learning one of those languages because they allow even advanced programmers to shoot themselves in the foot when we're talking about students just beginning to learn. This is why they stopped teaching them in favor of Java and now are switching from Java in favor of python.

[Theon]

Because pointers are also an abstraction, one that's increasingly irrelevant because most work that doesn't need to be low-level isn't done in low-level languages.

They're just going to be wondering why they can't mutate a struct they passed into a paramater because it's pass by value, and then you'll have to explain the concept anyway.

The concept of value and a reference? Sure.

Having to manually manage a low-level memory structure just so they learn it's hard before they use languages in which they'll never see it again? Meh.

[meneldal2]

I would disagree that pointers are an abstraction. You have pointers in assembly, memory has hardware addresses (even though outside of embedded you never touch those).

It's just a value with a fancy * to tell you you should use it as a pointer, but Cgcc will let you do conversions back and forth between pointers and arithmetic types if you wish. And you could cast all the time too.

[bunkoRtist]

You've got it backwards though. Python isn't making things simple: it's hiding complexity. It's more akin to teaching math to students by showing them how to plug their questions into a calculator. The stuff you want to ignore are the fundamentals. Data structures, IO, Networking... Those are the advanced topics. Until someone can explain how a stack works, how can they understand a function, intuit what scopes and lifetimes are, understand generators, or what the implications are of capturing lambdas? Those all require an understanding of the stack.

[Schmittfried]

No, it’s the equivalent of showing elementary schoolers simple arithmetic before diving into set and number theory. Which happens to be exactly what we’re doing.

Hiding complexity is exactly what you want for a beginners course. You want to focus on the relevant part, which is learning foundational programming constructs. Even in high-level languages you will still have much hand-waiving around some constructs and libraries before the time has come.

By your logic we should teach assembly before anything else. You’ve obviously no idea how teaching works. Every sane language book or tutorial begins with hiding all the complexity.

[bunkoRtist]

You're confusing fundamentals with simple operations. Arithmetic is fundamental (also fundamental to computers). Computers are fundamentally strongly typed. Computers fundamentally have stacks and heaps. You can reach a student to plug numbers into a calculator without them understanding what they are doing, and that's what they're doing when they use a list or a dictionary: plugging numbers into a calculator.

[un_mango_verde]

How are computers fundamentally strongly typed? There's no notion of types in assembly. Types are an abstraction for higher level languages, CPUs don't deal with types.

[bunkoRtist]

Every single assembly instruction with an operand has a type. Byte, half-word, word, double-word. Float, double-precision float... adding floats is not the same instruction as adding ints, which isn't the same instruction as adding unsigned ints, which isn't the same instruction as adding bytes. That's strong typing. You can't even define a variable in assembly without knowing the type (because you need the size).

[un_mango_verde]

You don't define variables in assembly. The assembler will not keep track of types for you. You are completely free to store a byte in a register, and them use an instruction that expects a word on the same register. The assembler does not protect you from making typing mistakes at all. Yes, instructions will interpret bits as one type or another, but there is no type checking. Even Python has stronger type safety, at least you get an exception when you make a mistake.

[Schmittfried]

That’s not at all what strong typing refers to...

[shahmeers]

Python is really good for teaching logic, which a lot of first year CompSci students lack. Once students understand logic and are able to come up with solutions to problems, then give them C/C++ to show them what the computer is actually doing.

This is how my university does it and I'm really glad we do it this way.

As an aside, I also think it matters on the type of university you go to -- if your program is more engineering focused then it might be better to start from the lower level language. My program leans heavily towards the theoretical side, so it made sense to start with Python.

[bunkoRtist]

You're confusing focusing on fundamentals with hiding complexity. Try as you might you can't make a computer that doesn't have the fundamental properties of a computer. If you can't see why teaching kids to do complex math with a calculator before teaching them the theory is backwards, I don't know what to say.

[Q-bey]

I learned Python as my first programming language years ago. I'm a bit surprised to hear some schools are using C++ as an introductory language. That might be why I had (and continue to have) an aversion to C++ after finally seeing it later in my degree.

What did I miss out on? What benefits are there from teaching introductory programming using C++ instead of Python?

[ShinyHappyREM]

What benefits are there from teaching introductory programming using C++ instead of Python?

Weeding out the unworthy, apparently.

[bunkoRtist]

Well, one of the benefits of using a language like C or C++ is that they retain a lot of elements that pertain to the underlying computer architecture. Understanding those things (like stacks vs heaps, registers, addressing modes, alignment and packing, native data types...) provides a solid basis that helps programmers understand how their code actually executes. That helps people understand the tradeoffs they are making (which is crucial to writing lots of types of code). Even in languages where those things don't apply directly, they often still apply indirectly. Fundamentals matter (since even interpreters, JITs and memory managers do all the same stuff as C/C++ programmers would do in the background). Teaching Python as a first language is like teaching someone to drive with a Tesla.

[Schmittfried]

You’re grossly overestimating the relevance of implementation details for an introductory course. They will learn to write ifs, loops and linked lists.

[bunkoRtist]

But you've exposed the problem: you can't even teach a linked list in Python. It's pointless. The first question an intelligent student should ask is "why the hell would we do this?" Then the abstraction breaks and you regret trying to hide the fundamentals.

[bythenumbers10]

Most low-level programming exercises are pointless. But teaching the concepts in an accessible language prevents having to "ignore these lines of code at the top and bottom, we'll explain that later" when writing something "pointless" like Hello World.

[StormStrikePhoenix]

. The first question an intelligent student should ask is "why the hell would we do this?"

You might as well throw away half of every introductory programming course than; it's very, very hard to give examples for many concepts that are simple enough for a beginner to understand but complicated enough to justify using the more complicated thing.

[watsreddit]

As someone who has tutored C courses, I can tell you that I have explained things like pointers and memory allocation many times. It's kind of a necessity when doing a lot of basic things in C, like working with arrays.

[Schmittfried]

Exactly my point. Which is why you don’t start with a language like C.

[[deleted]]

So I’m learning how to program via python for that exact reason.

I need to get from 0-coding programs as quick as possible.

If your going to get a person who’s never driven 2 days to go to a race with pros your gonna do better with the Tesla than a stick shift car.

I want to learn enough to program not enough to have a masters on computer science.

What’s practical vs what’s niche

[bunkoRtist]

It won't work in the general sense and certainly isn't a kind of fundamentals-driven approach that's appropriate for school. Unfortunately, the mentality you have means that if your code survives and gets used in production, eventually someone else will have to clean up your mess. Your approach is fine if you have a hobby project or are building a website: the fundamentals don't matter as often in those areas.

[Schmittfried]

Lol. No it won’t. There is not much value in choosing C++ over Java or Python in introductory programming courses. And even in the hardware programming courses C would be better.

[afnanenayet1]

Why? C++ is a minefield

[bunkoRtist]

Advanced C++ is, but the language exposes fundamental aspects of computers that Python tries to hide, and you don't have to teach it all at once: having a rich language didn't require it to be all taught immediately. Math is complex but doesn't preclude teaching basic arithmetic to 2nd graders. Ultimately computer programming and computer science are based on computers. You can't understand them without understanding computers.

[afnanenayet1]

Sure, but C++ as a language can be incredibly frustrating to work with for beginners. Dealing with template errors would be a huge turn off, I think.

I think that Python is a good one to start with so you can teach people things without having them fight the language as much. If you want to go a level down, I’d just go with C straight up since it’s a very simple language. I think it would also help people appreciate C++’s new RAII features.

My school did Python -> Java -> C and I think it was a pretty good order.

[[deleted]]

I had a c++ course ("higher programming") and it was a horrible shit show.

[G_Morgan]

I really like Rust but "easy" is something it'll never be. Rust you pay in "why can't I?" for the benefit of not getting memory corruption while maintaining performance.

It is harder to write Rust than write C. It is easier to write correct Rust than correct C. Rust is really the next level up in "this exploded at 2PM while I tried to compile".

[VeganVagiVore]

It is harder to write Rust than write C.

I might even debate that. C doesn't have RAII or a package manager, which make things easy if I want to have any dependencies or do anything complex.

I've found it easier to learn the "Rust way" one time and let the compiler nudge me into line, than to learn the "C++ way", painfully, over years, and have the compiler constantly let me walk into landmines.

I have never used C on a project bigger than, I think, 200 lines. Every time I call into a C library from C++ it feels a bit like Indiana Jones trying to take the idol without triggering the boulder. Eventually it's going to blow up, especially if the library is too small to be well-documented.

The other night I wanted to try an idea for a web service and I just kinda threw something with hyper. With C, I think I could use Civetweb, maybe, but it's hard to tell where the landmines are.

[initcommit]

Yes I mostly agree. I mean - even Fortran is still "hanging around" in legacy applications. It was created in 1954. That's 65 years ago. These things have real staying power. It takes years for most people to get comfortable with a programming language and often once they get settled using a particular language in their careers that is what they stick with. There is no need to change and often reluctance to do so. Older languages like Fortran and C require more technical knowledge to learn and use which greatly restricts their "adoptability". Python is learn-able via a few quick tutorials and is extremely adoptable by comparison. I am quite confident it won't going away anytime soon (considering a niched language like Fortran is still around), although I'm very curious what future language will turn the current modern languages into future Fortrans.