3 ms·

jerf is right.. you have a mental model of how a programming language works, and a new language is just changing the syntax used to represent those same concept

jerf is right.. you have a mental model of how a programming language works, and a new language is just changing the syntax used to represent those same concepts. Does that mean there's no reason to switch? No.. since some languages are better at representing some ideas; some languages have better abstractions for certain ideas; etc. I think starting with a lower level language helps with this way of thinking. If you learn everything about C (for example), and later learn a higher level language, it's easy to think of how you would implement a certain feature of the higher level language.

c22 11y ago
> I think starting with a lower level language helps with this way of thinking. If you learn everything about C (for example), and later learn a higher level language, it's easy to think of how you would implement a certain feature of the higher level language. I cannot agree with this more. A lot of people seem to think that a "better" language to learn programming with is one that is "easier" or "more forgiving", but everyone I know who started with C became excellent programmers whereas ability among the group who started with something else is somewhat more hit or miss.
- rgbrenner 11y ago
  Yes.. I think it's because C forces you to think about things you would never have to think about in a higher lang. For example, I know exactly how garbage collection works.. since I once had to write a GC for a project. So when I use a higher lang, that part isn't magic... it's just something someone else already wrote for me. Whereas, if you started with a higher level lang, you could get by without ever learning how a GC works. Yes, you could dive into the details of your language, but there's no requirement for you to do it. And I think that explains what you've noticed... it's hit or miss because those who chose to dive into the details of their lang eventually became excellent developers...
- afarrell 11y ago
  > everyone I know who started with C became excellent programmers whereas ability among the group who started with something else is somewhat more hit or miss. How much of this is survivorship bias?
wz1000 11y ago
> a new language is just changing the syntax used to represent those same concepts. I can think of two counter examples for this. First, Lisp with its meta-programming is completely unlike any other language that doesn't support such concepts. No programming I did(In C-like languages) ever prepared me for something like Lisp. Secondly, Haskell with laziness, immutability and a powerful type system is completely unlike any other mainstream language out there. You would struggle to even begin to express your programs in Haskell if you are not familiar enough with it. Imperative code and Haskell code are almost always completely different. If you have some experience with imperative languages, most of that experience would translate over to other imperative languages. However, an extremely small portion of my imperative language experience translated over to Haskell.

c22 11y ago

> I think starting with a lower level language helps with this way of thinking. If you learn everything about C (for example), and later learn a higher level language, it's easy to think of how you would implement a certain feature of the higher level language. I cannot agree with this more. A lot of people seem to think that a "better" language to learn programming with is one that is "easier" or "more forgiving", but everyone I know who started with C became excellent programmers whereas ability among the group who started with something else is somewhat more hit or miss.

rgbrenner 11y ago
Yes.. I think it's because C forces you to think about things you would never have to think about in a higher lang. For example, I know exactly how garbage collection works.. since I once had to write a GC for a project. So when I use a higher lang, that part isn't magic... it's just something someone else already wrote for me. Whereas, if you started with a higher level lang, you could get by without ever learning how a GC works. Yes, you could dive into the details of your language, but there's no requirement for you to do it. And I think that explains what you've noticed... it's hit or miss because those who chose to dive into the details of their lang eventually became excellent developers...
afarrell 11y ago
> everyone I know who started with C became excellent programmers whereas ability among the group who started with something else is somewhat more hit or miss. How much of this is survivorship bias?

wz1000 11y ago

> a new language is just changing the syntax used to represent those same concepts. I can think of two counter examples for this. First, Lisp with its meta-programming is completely unlike any other language that doesn't support such concepts. No programming I did(In C-like languages) ever prepared me for something like Lisp. Secondly, Haskell with laziness, immutability and a powerful type system is completely unlike any other mainstream language out there. You would struggle to even begin to express your programs in Haskell if you are not familiar enough with it. Imperative code and Haskell code are almost always completely different. If you have some experience with imperative languages, most of that experience would translate over to other imperative languages. However, an extremely small portion of my imperative language experience translated over to Haskell.