should i learn it first ?

[G. Sumner Hayes]

In article <a6f0fl$u8n$0 at 216.39.172.122>, Bengt Richter wrote:
>>
> I'd say if you don't know C, C++, or Python, then start with Python.
> Then C++, then C. In that order, you won't have to unlearn patterns
> of design you absorb solving problems with C.

Ugh, I can see learning Python first but definitely learn C before
C++.  In that order, you won't have to unlearn patterns of design
you absorb solving problems with C++.

Seriously, the point of using a low-level language like C or C++ is to get
next to the hardware, and it should be learned from that level first
IMO.  Otherwise, stay with a more productive language like Python.

> If you start with C, you will get used to a procedural way of looking
> at problems, and when you get to C++ you will be tempted to see it
> as just C with extra features. You'll have to dislodge yourself from C
> habits of thinking in order to "think objects" in C++. Coming from

Conversely, if you learn in the other order you'll find yourself thinking
of it as a limited version of C++ instead of a different language with
its own idiom.  The point of C is that it's procedural, small, and close
to the metal.  Viewing without the corrupting lens of C++ is extremely
valuable, IMO.

FWIW, I know more good programmers who learned C and then C++ than
vice-versa.

  Sumner

-- 
rage, rage against the dying of the light

Usenet email address changes periodically.  sumner-nntp at forceovermass
period com is more permanent.