4 ms·

For intro computer science students, pointers-as-explicit-references are far easier to comprehend than Java's esoterica. Said as someone who took intro compute

by ethbr0 5y ago

For intro computer science students, pointers-as-explicit-references are far easier to comprehend than Java's esoterica. Said as someone who took intro computer science at 2 universities across 3 courses (C/C++, Python, Java), due engineering to art to computer science major switching. I understand why Java did what they did, from a performance standpoint, but that's a poor highest value to hold for education use. And in retrospect, was batshit user-hostile. F.ex. with a few more keywords and rules, C# smoothed off so many rough edges.

kaba0 5y ago
> pointers-as-explicit-references are far easier to comprehend than Java's esoterica. What is esoteric about Java’s references? They are basically equivalent to C pointers without arithmetics and marketed as references. It is pretty much the same for most high level languages.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The object/primitive distinction, which seems like something an intro CS student really shouldn't be wasting their time learning. IMHO, the C-style */& was far clearer when I was first learning to program. Especially since you could just echo out the (virtual) memory address.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    The object/primitive distinction is pretty much the very short list of primitives (even written with lower case letters) vs every other type. > IMHO, the C-style */& was far clearer when I was first learning to program Tell that to the million segfaults that students learning C experience (or worse, they don’t even get it!!)
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Yes, int vs Integer. It does make sense that those would function differently. /s ;) And C definitely has some inscrutable errors, but to me once I understood them, they always made sense in computer terms. Whereas Java errors and oddities only make sense in Java terms.
kergonath 5y ago
> For intro computer science students, pointers-as-explicit-references are far easier to comprehend than Java's esoterica. C pointers are even worse as an introduction.

by ethbr0 5y ago

kaba0 5y ago

> pointers-as-explicit-references are far easier to comprehend than Java's esoterica. What is esoteric about Java’s references? They are basically equivalent to C pointers without arithmetics and marketed as references. It is pretty much the same for most high level languages.

ethbr0 5y ago
The object/primitive distinction, which seems like something an intro CS student really shouldn't be wasting their time learning. IMHO, the C-style */& was far clearer when I was first learning to program. Especially since you could just echo out the (virtual) memory address.
- kaba0 5y ago
  The object/primitive distinction is pretty much the very short list of primitives (even written with lower case letters) vs every other type. > IMHO, the C-style */& was far clearer when I was first learning to program Tell that to the million segfaults that students learning C experience (or worse, they don’t even get it!!)
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Yes, int vs Integer. It does make sense that those would function differently. /s ;) And C definitely has some inscrutable errors, but to me once I understood them, they always made sense in computer terms. Whereas Java errors and oddities only make sense in Java terms.

kergonath 5y ago

> For intro computer science students, pointers-as-explicit-references are far easier to comprehend than Java's esoterica. C pointers are even worse as an introduction.