5 ms·

I think the author's argument can be split into two generalizations: (1) people who know C are better programmers (2) people who learn Python first never lear

I think the author's argument can be split into two generalizations: (1) people who know C are better programmers (2) people who learn Python first never learn C I think (1) is generally true. I would be interested to hear someone explain why they think having low-level programming knowledge makes you a worse programmer than one without low-level knowledge. I disagree with (2). I took a high school class on Java, they spent several years programming in Python and becoming relatively proficient. As the author described, I eventually hit the "hard dirt" where I started to having to worry about the OS, memory, etc. I then learned C and C++, operating system internals, high performance computing, GPU computing, etc and all of the low-level ideas that the author thinks that those who learn Python will never know. However, both statements (1) and (2) are generalizations, and I've only shown that I violate (2). I believe (2) may actually hold for many people, and I agree with the author's idea that if people learned C first we would have fewer programmers but perhaps also better programmers. Of course, "better programmers" is very hard to define and depends a ton of the domain of tasks over which you're evaluating the programmer.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
(1) people who know C are better programmers. I think (1) is generally true. I would be interested to hear someone explain why they think having low-level programming knowledge makes you a worse programmer than one without low-level knowledge. This isn't related to the argument per se, but it's interesting to observe that website ninjas are making >$150k, whereas most low-level ninjas are making less. The reason is because most people want websites, and all of my SIMD knowledge becomes irrelevant in that case. "Better programmer" is very hard to quantify. Whereas "makes more money, on average" is a solid metric.
- lightcatcher 12y ago
  I agree that it's hard to find low-level work with equivalent pay to web development/frontend/etc. I think this is a reason that the "learn to code" movement focuses on Javascript and Python rather than C. From my limited experience, big companies (Google, Facebook, etc) are a good place to do low-level programming with good pay. Additionally, a lot of the programming in the financial industry (particularly high frequency trading) is very low-level work, and the pay is significantly better than the standard "Bay area web company".
the_af 12y ago
I agree with you on (1). Knowing more is better than knowing less; this is almost tautological. Knowing C -- it doesn't matter whether it's your first language -- will make you a better programmer. However, I disagree with the assertion from TFA that knowing C is somehow more "intelectually stimulating" than knowing Python. Specifically, I disagree with this: > "I get the sense that Python-first programmers are missing out on a lot of the fun of programming. There’s a mistaken notion that programming is most enjoyable when you’re doing a diverse array of things using the smallest amount of code, leveraging client libraries and so forth. This is true for people trying to get something done to meet a deadline; but for people motivated by learning — and who aspire to be extremely good programmers — it’s actually more fun to create programs that do less work, but in a more intellectually stimulating way." I find the above assertion ridiculous, and I know C better than Python. Learning programming with Python is more fun than learning with C. That's not to say C isn't fun; programming is fun as a whole. But Python is not for people "trying to meet deadlines", and it's way less puzzling and lets you get into the "interesting" part of your project faster, with fewer pitfalls and less boilerplate than C. That's the definition of "fun".
ams6110 12y ago
People who know C are better programmers. I would say that also people who know assembly language are better programmers. People who know a functional language are better programmers. People who know/have used a variety of languages are better programmers. Monoculture of any language or level of abstraction will limit programmer achievement.

sillysaurus3 12y ago

(1) people who know C are better programmers. I think (1) is generally true. I would be interested to hear someone explain why they think having low-level programming knowledge makes you a worse programmer than one without low-level knowledge. This isn't related to the argument per se, but it's interesting to observe that website ninjas are making >$150k, whereas most low-level ninjas are making less. The reason is because most people want websites, and all of my SIMD knowledge becomes irrelevant in that case. "Better programmer" is very hard to quantify. Whereas "makes more money, on average" is a solid metric.

lightcatcher 12y ago
I agree that it's hard to find low-level work with equivalent pay to web development/frontend/etc. I think this is a reason that the "learn to code" movement focuses on Javascript and Python rather than C. From my limited experience, big companies (Google, Facebook, etc) are a good place to do low-level programming with good pay. Additionally, a lot of the programming in the financial industry (particularly high frequency trading) is very low-level work, and the pay is significantly better than the standard "Bay area web company".

the_af 12y ago

I agree with you on (1). Knowing more is better than knowing less; this is almost tautological. Knowing C -- it doesn't matter whether it's your first language -- will make you a better programmer. However, I disagree with the assertion from TFA that knowing C is somehow more "intelectually stimulating" than knowing Python. Specifically, I disagree with this: > "I get the sense that Python-first programmers are missing out on a lot of the fun of programming. There’s a mistaken notion that programming is most enjoyable when you’re doing a diverse array of things using the smallest amount of code, leveraging client libraries and so forth. This is true for people trying to get something done to meet a deadline; but for people motivated by learning — and who aspire to be extremely good programmers — it’s actually more fun to create programs that do less work, but in a more intellectually stimulating way." I find the above assertion ridiculous, and I know C better than Python. Learning programming with Python is more fun than learning with C. That's not to say C isn't fun; programming is fun as a whole. But Python is not for people "trying to meet deadlines", and it's way less puzzling and lets you get into the "interesting" part of your project faster, with fewer pitfalls and less boilerplate than C. That's the definition of "fun".

ams6110 12y ago

People who know C are better programmers. I would say that also people who know assembly language are better programmers. People who know a functional language are better programmers. People who know/have used a variety of languages are better programmers. Monoculture of any language or level of abstraction will limit programmer achievement.