4 ms·

What about learning C first compared to languages that don't have the concept of real pointers (like, say, Java)? I started out with C++ (and still write C/C++

What about learning C first compared to languages that don't have the concept of real pointers (like, say, Java)? I started out with C++ (and still write C/C++ from time to time), and I feel like it's given me a better understanding of memory management and reference types that a lot of programmers I meet and work with don't seem to really grasp. In C# code I constantly see the "anti-pattern" of new-ing up a variable at declaration, only to immediately overwrite it on the next line with the results of some function. I can't help but think that the person writing it has no concept of what "new" is actually doing (with regards to the heap and the GC, for example).

eru 15y ago
> What about learning C first compared to languages that don't have the concept of real pointers (like, say, Java)? If you want to learn pointers, you have to learn a language that provides them. So C, or like I said, Forth or Pascal. C is fine as a first language, if you don't mind the pain. C++ is a horrible language, no matter when you learn it. Never cripple the minds of beginners with it. About your C# anecdote, does the language allow something like the following?: type variables = someFunction (); Nowadays I usually program in Haskell for my day job. There lots and lots of nice concepts to be understood there. You could even use pointers, if you are desperate enough.
- dbattaglia 15y ago
  does the language allow something like the following?: yes, exactly. The problem is you see stuff like this: var obj = new SomeType(); obj = GetSomeType(); Basically creating 2 objects, the first of which is immediately garbage since it no longer has any roots. Anyone who understands pointers/references and memory allocation should understand that "new" is actually creating a new live object on the heap, rather than just initializing a pointer to null (or a stack-based value type to zero). These days C# is actually a decent language to code in, it has a nice functional aspect to it with linq/lambdas, and you can still go down to C style pointers/"unsafe" code if necessary (with lots of restrictions of course). It's really the Microsoft dependency that kills it more than anything else.
  - eru 15y ago
    var obj = new SomeType(); obj = GetSomeType(); You could almost be tempted to write an automatic converter to var obj = GetSomeType(); but you can't in general, because you don't know whether `new SomeType()' doesn't have side-effects. But if it has some that are relied on, that's probably a bug. I know that there's a free .net runtime called Mono. What about the compiler side of free C#?

eru 15y ago

> What about learning C first compared to languages that don't have the concept of real pointers (like, say, Java)? If you want to learn pointers, you have to learn a language that provides them. So C, or like I said, Forth or Pascal. C is fine as a first language, if you don't mind the pain. C++ is a horrible language, no matter when you learn it. Never cripple the minds of beginners with it. About your C# anecdote, does the language allow something like the following?: type variables = someFunction (); Nowadays I usually program in Haskell for my day job. There lots and lots of nice concepts to be understood there. You could even use pointers, if you are desperate enough.

dbattaglia 15y ago
does the language allow something like the following?: yes, exactly. The problem is you see stuff like this: var obj = new SomeType(); obj = GetSomeType(); Basically creating 2 objects, the first of which is immediately garbage since it no longer has any roots. Anyone who understands pointers/references and memory allocation should understand that "new" is actually creating a new live object on the heap, rather than just initializing a pointer to null (or a stack-based value type to zero). These days C# is actually a decent language to code in, it has a nice functional aspect to it with linq/lambdas, and you can still go down to C style pointers/"unsafe" code if necessary (with lots of restrictions of course). It's really the Microsoft dependency that kills it more than anything else.
- eru 15y ago
  var obj = new SomeType(); obj = GetSomeType(); You could almost be tempted to write an automatic converter to var obj = GetSomeType(); but you can't in general, because you don't know whether `new SomeType()' doesn't have side-effects. But if it has some that are relied on, that's probably a bug. I know that there's a free .net runtime called Mono. What about the compiler side of free C#?