4 ms·

> I kind of feel like it goes without saying that Rust isn't ideal for beginners. I think that depends on, first, what the goal is, and second, what you're com

> I kind of feel like it goes without saying that Rust isn't ideal for beginners. I think that depends on, first, what the goal is, and second, what you're comparing to. It think Rust is easier on beginners, in many ways, than C. And C is easier on beginners, in many ways, than assembly or machine code. But if you want to really understand computer programming, starting at machine code or at least assembly isn't a crazy way to start.

tialaramex 4y ago
Beginning with machine code for some simple architecture (maybe RISC-V these days?) might be one good route in. I can also see (having experienced it myself, albeit I already knew C etc. these were not requirements and many of my classmates did not) beginning with a pure functional language where all the practicalities are abstracted entirely. Today the University where I learned this begins with Java, which I am confident is the wrong choice, but the person who part-designed their curriculum, and is a friend, disagrees with me and he's the one getting paid to teach them.
nicoburns 4y ago
> It think Rust is easier on beginners, in many ways, than C. And C is easier on beginners, in many ways, than assembly or machine code. But if you want to really understand computer programming, starting at machine code or at least assembly isn't a crazy way to start. I mean sure. But equally, starting with Python isn't a crazy way to start. And Python is much easier language to learn than any of those (esp. if you want to actually create something practical with it).
- hgomersall 4y ago
  Sure, but if your objective is systems programming, you'll probably quickly get to the point of realising python is not the right choice.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Depends, if writing a compiler is still considered systems programming in modern times. https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Interpreters-Compilers-Raspberry-Python/dp/1977509207 https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Interpreters-Compilers-Raspbe...
    - less_less 4y ago
      Compilers are their own beast — I wouldn't put them with systems code. They're pretty different from an OS, BLAS, machine learning kernel, game engine, network stack, database or what have you. There's not as much buffer management, speed and memory aren't usually as critical, you don't make direct syscalls, many structures are graphs rather than arrays, etc. They often aren't even multithreaded. It's also popular to write compilers in distinctly non-"systems-y" languages, most notably Standard ML but also eg Haskell, and lots of languages are self-hosted.
      - travisgriggs 4y ago
        I think compilers are a strong sub field of meta programming. I see meta programming as anything that deals directly or indirectly with ASTs. Compilers (er parsers and linkers) make ASTs and transform them. Refactoring engines (should) work with them. Sadly, I’m not sure what language I’d recommend as ideal for this (meta programming) now days. I think it’s zen cool when a language like Lisp or Zig or Elixir slides sideways in and out of meta programming, but that doesn’t mean they have good ASTs to work with, or that they’re ideal as a pseudo language to manipulate them. It should be something that is both not too complex, but also not so zen abstract that you have to bootstrap meaningful things endlessly. I personally liked the Smalltalk AST. But I couldn’t speak to its pedagogical or industry value as a meta programming environment.
        eru 4y ago
        Are you talking about the tools that eg Lisp has to manipulate arbitrary ASTs, or are you talking about the AST required to represent Lisp code? Racket (a Lisp) and ML-family languages like Haskell are really good at manipulating arbitrary ASTs and similar structures. ML was even invented to do exactly that, the letters stand for meta-language. I do agree that the structures you need to represent Haskell would be rather complicated: Haskell is a rather complex language after all. I'm not sure what you mean by having to bootstrap meaningful things endlessly? I can understand that eg C is pretty limited, so you have to put in lots of effort to bootstrap to something meaningfully. But most higher level languages would be doing just fine. And you can also use libraries: Eg no need to write your own parser from scratch, if you can just use a parser combinator library like parsec. Also no need for a beginner to write native code generation from scratch: just use a library to interface with llvm.
msla 4y ago
> But if you want to really understand computer programming, starting at machine code or at least assembly isn't a crazy way to start. I've long suspected that the CS field was founded on two approaches: The people who started from EE and worked their way up, and the people who started from Math and worked their way down. The former people think assembly is the "real" way to approach software, and probably view C++ as "very high-level", whereas the latter people think everyone should start with a course on the lambda calculus and type systems and gradually ease into Haskell, work down to Lisp, and then maybe deign to learn Python for *shudder* numerical work.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  I'd argue there's also a 3rd foundation of CS: language. Programming languages really are languages in the general sense of the word, and their purpose is to allow humans to effectively communicate with machines. Focussing on optimising that communication is the 3rd approach.
  - eru 4y ago
    Oh, that's just a subtype of mathematician. Basically in computing, there's mathematicians who want to deal with languages and those who want to deal with numbers. Math itself is all about communication. Finding a new theorem is neat, but it's only proper math once you found a proof for it that you can communicate to other people.
- kenward 4y ago
  Your comment reminded me of this article[1] that has probably been posted plenty of times on HN. You've described both the "hacker" and the "mathematician" tribes. [1] https://josephg.com/blog/3-tribes/ https://josephg.com/blog/3-tribes/

tialaramex 4y ago

Beginning with machine code for some simple architecture (maybe RISC-V these days?) might be one good route in. I can also see (having experienced it myself, albeit I already knew C etc. these were not requirements and many of my classmates did not) beginning with a pure functional language where all the practicalities are abstracted entirely. Today the University where I learned this begins with Java, which I am confident is the wrong choice, but the person who part-designed their curriculum, and is a friend, disagrees with me and he's the one getting paid to teach them.

nicoburns 4y ago

> It think Rust is easier on beginners, in many ways, than C. And C is easier on beginners, in many ways, than assembly or machine code. But if you want to really understand computer programming, starting at machine code or at least assembly isn't a crazy way to start. I mean sure. But equally, starting with Python isn't a crazy way to start. And Python is much easier language to learn than any of those (esp. if you want to actually create something practical with it).

hgomersall 4y ago
Sure, but if your objective is systems programming, you'll probably quickly get to the point of realising python is not the right choice.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Depends, if writing a compiler is still considered systems programming in modern times. https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Interpreters-Compilers-Raspberry-Python/dp/1977509207 https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Interpreters-Compilers-Raspbe...
  - less_less 4y ago
    Compilers are their own beast — I wouldn't put them with systems code. They're pretty different from an OS, BLAS, machine learning kernel, game engine, network stack, database or what have you. There's not as much buffer management, speed and memory aren't usually as critical, you don't make direct syscalls, many structures are graphs rather than arrays, etc. They often aren't even multithreaded. It's also popular to write compilers in distinctly non-"systems-y" languages, most notably Standard ML but also eg Haskell, and lots of languages are self-hosted.
    - travisgriggs 4y ago
      I think compilers are a strong sub field of meta programming. I see meta programming as anything that deals directly or indirectly with ASTs. Compilers (er parsers and linkers) make ASTs and transform them. Refactoring engines (should) work with them. Sadly, I’m not sure what language I’d recommend as ideal for this (meta programming) now days. I think it’s zen cool when a language like Lisp or Zig or Elixir slides sideways in and out of meta programming, but that doesn’t mean they have good ASTs to work with, or that they’re ideal as a pseudo language to manipulate them. It should be something that is both not too complex, but also not so zen abstract that you have to bootstrap meaningful things endlessly. I personally liked the Smalltalk AST. But I couldn’t speak to its pedagogical or industry value as a meta programming environment.
      - eru 4y ago
        Are you talking about the tools that eg Lisp has to manipulate arbitrary ASTs, or are you talking about the AST required to represent Lisp code? Racket (a Lisp) and ML-family languages like Haskell are really good at manipulating arbitrary ASTs and similar structures. ML was even invented to do exactly that, the letters stand for meta-language. I do agree that the structures you need to represent Haskell would be rather complicated: Haskell is a rather complex language after all. I'm not sure what you mean by having to bootstrap meaningful things endlessly? I can understand that eg C is pretty limited, so you have to put in lots of effort to bootstrap to something meaningfully. But most higher level languages would be doing just fine. And you can also use libraries: Eg no need to write your own parser from scratch, if you can just use a parser combinator library like parsec. Also no need for a beginner to write native code generation from scratch: just use a library to interface with llvm.

msla 4y ago

> But if you want to really understand computer programming, starting at machine code or at least assembly isn't a crazy way to start. I've long suspected that the CS field was founded on two approaches: The people who started from EE and worked their way up, and the people who started from Math and worked their way down. The former people think assembly is the "real" way to approach software, and probably view C++ as "very high-level", whereas the latter people think everyone should start with a course on the lambda calculus and type systems and gradually ease into Haskell, work down to Lisp, and then maybe deign to learn Python for *shudder* numerical work.

nicoburns 4y ago
I'd argue there's also a 3rd foundation of CS: language. Programming languages really are languages in the general sense of the word, and their purpose is to allow humans to effectively communicate with machines. Focussing on optimising that communication is the 3rd approach.
- eru 4y ago
  Oh, that's just a subtype of mathematician. Basically in computing, there's mathematicians who want to deal with languages and those who want to deal with numbers. Math itself is all about communication. Finding a new theorem is neat, but it's only proper math once you found a proof for it that you can communicate to other people.
kenward 4y ago
Your comment reminded me of this article[1] that has probably been posted plenty of times on HN. You've described both the "hacker" and the "mathematician" tribes. [1] https://josephg.com/blog/3-tribes/ https://josephg.com/blog/3-tribes/