3 ms·

I agree with your experience, but not your conclusion. How quickly you can switch from C++ to Java is a function of how similar Java and C++ are, not how easy o

I agree with your experience, but not your conclusion. How quickly you can switch from C++ to Java is a function of how similar Java and C++ are, not how easy one or the other is. For the record, I also learned C++ first. I also found Java to be a breeze. And then I discovered a whole world of other languages, and learned that in the grand scheme of things, Java and C++ are actually really similar to each other. Even Python is not so incredibly different, though it is vastly easier thanks to dynamic typing. Compare any of these to stack based languages (Forth), array-based languages (APL), dataflow/graphical languages (LabView), homoiconic languages (Lisp), dependently-typed languages (Coq), etc. There are so many paradigms that are so dizzyingly different from each other. C++ and Java really are much more similar than they are different. And it's worth pointing out that many if not most of these, though they would probably induce shock in a typical C++/Java programmer, are actually built on top of a small set of core concepts that is probably more coherent than either of Java or C++. And this matters a lot for people who are learning truly from scratch. There isn't necessarily enough data to make any definitive statements here, but there are schools that start with e.g. Haskell as a first language, and offhand I would probably say they get off the ground faster than a lot of Java/C++ introductory courses I see.

peterashford 8y ago
Sure, C++ and Java are both Algol based languages. I agree that a different paradigm is a better way to go for learning - LISP as I mentioned or Haskell as you mentioned. I have done a little Haskell and Erlang, but not enough to say that I know those languages. LISP I value chiefly for making me think differently which I guess is what you are going for in your comments. Although, I do still assert that Java is an inherently good language. I knew C before C++ and I would rank C and Java as 'better' languages than C++ from a design perspective. C and Java for being simple. C++ is good in other ways - it is arguably 'powerful' although the bang for buck over Java is reasonably low in that regard these days. My point is, I know several Algol languages and in my opinion C++, C# are the 'worse' ones and Java, C are the 'best'. I completely accept that other people will view this entirely differently and that this is largely a matter of taste.

peterashford 8y ago

Sure, C++ and Java are both Algol based languages. I agree that a different paradigm is a better way to go for learning - LISP as I mentioned or Haskell as you mentioned. I have done a little Haskell and Erlang, but not enough to say that I know those languages. LISP I value chiefly for making me think differently which I guess is what you are going for in your comments. Although, I do still assert that Java is an inherently good language. I knew C before C++ and I would rank C and Java as 'better' languages than C++ from a design perspective. C and Java for being simple. C++ is good in other ways - it is arguably 'powerful' although the bang for buck over Java is reasonably low in that regard these days. My point is, I know several Algol languages and in my opinion C++, C# are the 'worse' ones and Java, C are the 'best'. I completely accept that other people will view this entirely differently and that this is largely a matter of taste.