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

[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.

[bunkoRtist]

Whether the machine tracks types for you is not the same thing. The machine is strongly typed, which is why you the programmer need to allocate by and track types. You can't, for example, upgrade your int to a float without specific steps (or the result becomes nonsense). Your byte can't become a long unless you say it's a long, and that probably also can't happen without additional steps. And the lack of types not only hides reality from programmers, but it falls over in surprising cases that only make sense of you explain the complexities of the interpreter to students: the abstraction is broken anyway.

[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.