If you found C++ to be straightforward, then you don't really know the language.
how about implicit copy construction? did you know about that when you learned C++ in high school? what about the order in which operator overloads are found? how about virtual inheritance, how a v-table works, or static object construction/destruction order?
anyone who thinks C++ is an easy language either has no clue about 99% of the crap that it does, or is a complete moron. writing code in C++ is easy. writing hello world and other small programs is simple in any language, thats just syntax, but there is more to programming than syntax: C++'s implicit semantics make it a very difficult language to learn CORRECTLY, and to write CLEAN code for.
Powerful, yes. Easy or straightforward? not a chance.
Brown University, debatedly one of the best
undergraduate computer science programs in the country, had been using Java as its core language for a number of years (before this was OO-Pascal, ugh). Recently though, an alternative introductory sequence was added in which scheme was the core language, and java was taught later.
The question, in an undergraduate program, should not be necessarily what language prepares students best for industry. A huge majority of industry applications are still written in C, so if training students for the real world is the goal, then all courses should be taught in C. That is not the point of an undergrad education. A computer science program should be teaching computer science (programming is just a part of this). Hence, Brown's addition of the scheme intro sequence. Scheme allows students to learn difficult concepts such as recursion (remember the first time someone explained recursion to you?). Java allows students to learn the OO paradigm to programming without needing to know the intimacies of the hardware. No one should be dereferencing pointers before they've learned how computers work. (this is usually taught in an architecture class, usually taken sophomore year). Basically, the advantage of java is that it makes students learn how to write good, clean, OO code, before they learn how it is implemented on a real computer.
The real question is not what language is best for an intro sequence: the real question is do students learn more in a top-down approach to learning software engineering, or a bottom-up approach?
Slashdot Mirror
how about implicit copy construction? did you know about that when you learned C++ in high school? what about the order in which operator overloads are found? how about virtual inheritance, how a v-table works, or static object construction/destruction order?
anyone who thinks C++ is an easy language either has no clue about 99% of the crap that it does, or is a complete moron. writing code in C++ is easy. writing hello world and other small programs is simple in any language, thats just syntax, but there is more to programming than syntax: C++'s implicit semantics make it a very difficult language to learn CORRECTLY, and to write CLEAN code for.
Powerful, yes. Easy or straightforward? not a chance.
Brown University, debatedly one of the best undergraduate computer science programs in the country, had been using Java as its core language for a number of years (before this was OO-Pascal, ugh). Recently though, an alternative introductory sequence was added in which scheme was the core language, and java was taught later.
The question, in an undergraduate program, should not be necessarily what language prepares students best for industry. A huge majority of industry applications are still written in C, so if training students for the real world is the goal, then all courses should be taught in C. That is not the point of an undergrad education. A computer science program should be teaching computer science (programming is just a part of this). Hence, Brown's addition of the scheme intro sequence. Scheme allows students to learn difficult concepts such as recursion (remember the first time someone explained recursion to you?). Java allows students to learn the OO paradigm to programming without needing to know the intimacies of the hardware. No one should be dereferencing pointers before they've learned how computers work. (this is usually taught in an architecture class, usually taken sophomore year). Basically, the advantage of java is that it makes students learn how to write good, clean, OO code, before they learn how it is implemented on a real computer.
The real question is not what language is best for an intro sequence: the real question is do students learn more in a top-down approach to learning software engineering, or a bottom-up approach?