3 ms·

> None of those things matter to a beginner That's where you are wrong. Beginners don't know that these things matter to them. But they very much matter. >

> None of those things matter to a beginner That's where you are wrong. Beginners don't know that these things matter to them. But they very much matter. > so they can actually learn programming But they won't. They will become the "water from the toilet" idiots. Whatever they learn how to do will have no value, if they don't know how to do it well. Accidentally I saw this article today about how US military lowered IQ requirements for draftees during the Vietnam war, and how people with low IQ were five times as likely to die. You are suggesting to do thing wrong in hopes that it's somehow if you do it fast, nobody will notice? -- hell no. We already have armies of programmers who believe in strict static typing or in object-oriented programming. This will just add more idiots to their ranks.

alpaca128 3y ago
> That's where you are wrong. Beginners don't know that these things matter to them. But they very much matter. Could you specify why they matter for a beginner? Because I've been using Python for quite a while and I can't answer your previous question about what specific Python version did that subclass attribute change. I think by the time such a detail comes up a "beginner" is already comfortable enough with the basics to learn about it. But in Python those basics tend to be more straightforward and riddled with less boilerplate and redundant syntax than in many other languages, which is nice because getting slowed down by those things when learning is frustrating. > You are suggesting to do thing wrong in hopes that it's somehow if you do it fast, nobody will notice? I'm suggesting that reducing friction in the first phases of learning programming is a worthwhile improvement and that the choice of language matters in this regard, nothing else. I didn't say a word about learning an entire language or learning programming up to the point which you call "knowing how to do it well". > We already have armies of programmers who believe in strict static typing or in object-oriented programming. This will just add more idiots to their ranks. Am I reading this correctly that you think relying on strict static typing is for idiots? Because I made the experience it's very helpful for maintaining code, in addition to other best practices of course.
- jppittma 3y ago
  They're not redundant and frustrating when you're a beginner. The repetition is good for you, and things still feel novel rather than repetitive and boring.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> But they won't. They will become the "water from the toilet" idiots. This is, IME, not a function of what language people learn with first (ot second or...) but of their personality and desires. Most people who learn programming learn it as a means to an ends (often the latter is a paycheck) and will learn only as much as feels like a good payoff for the effort in that context. This isn't the fault of the language they start with, its just human nature. You can't fix that things you thibk everyone should know about programming, and should want to know, actually don’t make sense to bother learning given most people’s actual utility function by using a different first language.

alpaca128 3y ago

> That's where you are wrong. Beginners don't know that these things matter to them. But they very much matter. Could you specify why they matter for a beginner? Because I've been using Python for quite a while and I can't answer your previous question about what specific Python version did that subclass attribute change. I think by the time such a detail comes up a "beginner" is already comfortable enough with the basics to learn about it. But in Python those basics tend to be more straightforward and riddled with less boilerplate and redundant syntax than in many other languages, which is nice because getting slowed down by those things when learning is frustrating. > You are suggesting to do thing wrong in hopes that it's somehow if you do it fast, nobody will notice? I'm suggesting that reducing friction in the first phases of learning programming is a worthwhile improvement and that the choice of language matters in this regard, nothing else. I didn't say a word about learning an entire language or learning programming up to the point which you call "knowing how to do it well". > We already have armies of programmers who believe in strict static typing or in object-oriented programming. This will just add more idiots to their ranks. Am I reading this correctly that you think relying on strict static typing is for idiots? Because I made the experience it's very helpful for maintaining code, in addition to other best practices of course.

jppittma 3y ago
They're not redundant and frustrating when you're a beginner. The repetition is good for you, and things still feel novel rather than repetitive and boring.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> But they won't. They will become the "water from the toilet" idiots. This is, IME, not a function of what language people learn with first (ot second or...) but of their personality and desires. Most people who learn programming learn it as a means to an ends (often the latter is a paycheck) and will learn only as much as feels like a good payoff for the effort in that context. This isn't the fault of the language they start with, its just human nature. You can't fix that things you thibk everyone should know about programming, and should want to know, actually don’t make sense to bother learning given most people’s actual utility function by using a different first language.