I think it depends on what you actually want to accomplish. Do you want to learn to program or do you simply want to achieve some more definite, practical goal? If it's the latter, Python would probably be a good starting point. It's small and easy to pick up, by most accounts.
If you want to learn to program, I think it's probably not the ideal starting point for the very reasons that some other people are pointing out as benefits; it's (too) easy and does (too) much of the work behind the scenes where you can't really learn from it. I think you'd be better off learning Java, which requires more understanding of the fundamentals involved. If you're really concerned about your ability to learn (and you certainly don't need to be the smartest person on the planet to learn programming), take a look at one of the free tutorials, like; http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/index.html. If you can understand that, you've got nothing to worry about. And, while I like O'Reilly's "Nutshell" series, I'm not a huge fan of some of their other books, either.
I agree, it is absurd to think that platform independence is the only reason why somebody would ever want to use a language that supports it. Such languages often have other desirable features as well.
Wow! A genuinely intelligent response! I'm speechless. Fortunately, I'm not type-less. Thanks for the clarification.
Silly me. I was thinking that the point of using a platform independent language was to create platform independent apps. Where do I get such absurd ideas? I guess I was foolishly giving that other guy too much credit.
I'm not familiar with Python (which is why I was reading this) but, if you have to modify it, even a little, every time you port it to a new operating system, you can hardly call it "platform independent". The very definition of platform independence is that you don't have to modify the app.
On the rare occassion that I look at code and can't figure it out, I rewrite it because, obviously, the code sucks
Sorry. Did you actually say you rewrite code you don't understand? If you don't understand it, you clearly can't know exactly what it's purpose is, so how can you rewrite it?
Since IT services are a cost of doing other types of business, the costs of producing everything that relies on IT will tend to fall, too... In the end, the costs to end-consumers across the economy will go down. And it doesn't take an economist to realize that to the consumer, lower costs are the same thing as having more money.
If you let the market do what it wants to do, you let the IT people take a hit in the short-medium term in exchange for greater prosperity in the economy as a whole.
Yeah, these are the standard arguments used by proponents of "Free Market" economics or Reganomics as they were known for a while. And, they're logically sound and mathematically unassailable. The problem is they're based on assumptions that ignore reality. They assume that a decrease of X in production cost to the manufacturer results in a decrease of X in the cost of finished goods to the consumer. That's just insanely optimistic.
Does anyone know of an actual documented case of this happening in modern times? I seriously doubt it. In the real world, wealth does not "trickle down". Not if the wealthy have anything to say about it. In extreme cases, say when a company is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, the proportions may be altered slightly, but the full X never makes it to the consumer. At best, the customer might see 80% of that savings. Usually it's a percentage approaching, if not reaching, zero.
But, let's say that our IT company outsources my job to someone for 80% of my former salary. This doesn't just affect me, or even just the superset of people with whom I do business; it affects the whole class of people in the same salary class I'm in. Not just in the IT industry which, naturally, rushes to follow the example set by my former employer, but every white collar employee earning the same general level of salary and benefits. Why shouldn't they? If cheaper labor can handle jobs that the average CEO can't even understand, they can certainly handle the jobs he does understand within his own business.
Soon, everyone who was making X is making.8X (if they can find a position that will hire a full-time, benefited employee, instead of a contractor) because that's what the market rate is, for now. And, they learn to make do with that salary level because they have no real choice, but their.8X salary now has to stretch to cover products/services that, at best, have dropped to.99X prices. But, the company's bottom line looks good, so their stock goes up and the CEO gets another billion dollar bonus, and the pundits tell us "the economy" is strong because the stock market is up, despite the continual, and accelerating, erosion of the quality of life for the average american worker.
And, no, the problem is not the influx of cheap foreign workers; that's a symptom. The problem is fear. Fear that, if they don't squeeze the last penny out of the lower echelons (without touching executive perks and privileges, of course!), the suppliers (if any), and the customers, they'll lose their own cushy jobs. And that may be true, in some cases, but not universally, and this is a damn near universal problem in this country. Greed is responsible for it, of course; the insatiable greed of stockholders and boards of directors. But, the problem is fear.
Re:Renault F1 motor plays Queen...
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 1
Some Anonymous Coward already had a link to it, above. And, yes, it DOES make my teeth hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to learn to program, I think it's probably not the ideal starting point for the very reasons that some other people are pointing out as benefits; it's (too) easy and does (too) much of the work behind the scenes where you can't really learn from it. I think you'd be better off learning Java, which requires more understanding of the fundamentals involved. If you're really concerned about your ability to learn (and you certainly don't need to be the smartest person on the planet to learn programming), take a look at one of the free tutorials, like; http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/index.html . If you can understand that, you've got nothing to worry about. And, while I like O'Reilly's "Nutshell" series, I'm not a huge fan of some of their other books, either.
Nicely done. A very well written introduction.
Silly me. I was thinking that the point of using a platform independent language was to create platform independent apps. Where do I get such absurd ideas? I guess I was foolishly giving that other guy too much credit.
Well, thank goodness you already know everything. Saves me the trouble of answering when you answer your own questions.
I'm not familiar with Python (which is why I was reading this) but, if you have to modify it, even a little, every time you port it to a new operating system, you can hardly call it "platform independent". The very definition of platform independence is that you don't have to modify the app.
Does anyone know of an actual documented case of this happening in modern times? I seriously doubt it. In the real world, wealth does not "trickle down". Not if the wealthy have anything to say about it. In extreme cases, say when a company is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, the proportions may be altered slightly, but the full X never makes it to the consumer. At best, the customer might see 80% of that savings. Usually it's a percentage approaching, if not reaching, zero.
But, let's say that our IT company outsources my job to someone for 80% of my former salary. This doesn't just affect me, or even just the superset of people with whom I do business; it affects the whole class of people in the same salary class I'm in. Not just in the IT industry which, naturally, rushes to follow the example set by my former employer, but every white collar employee earning the same general level of salary and benefits. Why shouldn't they? If cheaper labor can handle jobs that the average CEO can't even understand, they can certainly handle the jobs he does understand within his own business.
Soon, everyone who was making X is making .8X (if they can find a position that will hire a full-time, benefited employee, instead of a contractor) because that's what the market rate is, for now. And, they learn to make do with that salary level because they have no real choice, but their .8X salary now has to stretch to cover products/services that, at best, have dropped to .99X prices. But, the company's bottom line looks good, so their stock goes up and the CEO gets another billion dollar bonus, and the pundits tell us "the economy" is strong because the stock market is up, despite the continual, and accelerating, erosion of the quality of life for the average american worker.
And, no, the problem is not the influx of cheap foreign workers; that's a symptom. The problem is fear. Fear that, if they don't squeeze the last penny out of the lower echelons (without touching executive perks and privileges, of course!), the suppliers (if any), and the customers, they'll lose their own cushy jobs. And that may be true, in some cases, but not universally, and this is a damn near universal problem in this country. Greed is responsible for it, of course; the insatiable greed of stockholders and boards of directors. But, the problem is fear.
It's the sheet music files. They're HUUUUGE!