Had Phyton suggested

[djw]

Steve Horsley wrote:

> P.C. wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>>
>> My son like many youngsters been around computers, fast online games, he
>> acturly for main part learned to read and write ,beside his second 
>> language
>> english , and may I say he is quite good at it age 15 ,  but as some 
>> of you
>> know, 3D games also offer edditors and script options , or rather
>> programming choppers and dust clouds in scenes.
>> Now beside my bad english, my problem is, that I like him to learn decent
>> programming ------- sure I know the best way to learn is looking at 
>> source
>> code and change a bit here or there to se the actural results, but 
>> with his
>> knowleage about programming he proberly fail to se how functions work and
>> even he made some quite nice effects in the scenes in "Operation 
>> falshpoint
>> resistance" , I just know that he would profit from learning from 
>> buttom up,
>> a real programming language.
>> Now from an old friend I been advised Phyton, and as I know a bit about
>> programming ( Lisp ) , I agrea after checking a few links ; guess 
>> Phyton is
>> very much C++ like ,so investing in his interests programming scenes for
>> games, could be in his faviour .
>> Now I agrea that my own knowleage about compilers and more advanced
>> programming are limited, and my fear is that I will need some sort of C.
>> compiler causing day's and weeks of trouble setting up ------- or what do
>> the group think ; my question is, if there today are compilers that is 
>> set
>> up and work as simple as for instance the first Pascal compilers .
>> Well I agrea that my own trouble programming, never been the actural
>> programming, but all the silli trouble with compilers, as you se amatures
>> don't care if the program spend a bit more memmory ,as long as it work 
>> and
>> acturly produce compiled code.
>> Guess my question is, if it is possible to find a compiler that is fit 
>> for
>> amatures, one that an amature will not have to fight before it is 
>> ready to
>> use. One where you ,as when I learned programming , don't need to be a
>> compiler specialist before you even learn programming.
>>
>> P.C.
>>
>>
> Python is an interpreted language, not a compiled one. So you don't need 
> to worry about compilers at all. This makes it a little easier to get 
> into than compiled languages. I thin python is a very good introduction 
> to someone who knows nothing about programming.
> 
> At the risk of making a lot of python fans angry, I would also suggest 
> that you look at java. This IS a compiled language (although ironically, 
> the compiled bytecode is interpreted). I suggest this for a few reasons:
> * You cannot really avoid thinking in an object-oriented way when 
> writing java. I suspect that python will allow you to develop some very 
> nasyt habits.
> * The java tutorial is massive, and has loads of examples.
> * I have not seen anything like BlueJ for python. BlueJ is an excellent 
> beginners IDE with editor, debugger, and a UML-like diagram that shows 
> how your classes interconnect.
> 
> Better, learn a little of both languages.
> 
> Steve

Angry, no. But I don't think your advice is very sound. First, Python 
"compiles" to bytecodes much the way Java does. If Java does anything 
different, it is that it can employ a JIT compiler to speed up the 
execution of the bytecodes. Second, I disagree that Python will make 
someone develop "bad habits". Using object oriented programming is not 
the end-all to all the world's problems. Java forces you into this model 
at all times, Python doesn't. If anything, I think Java's view of the 
world is flawed - sometimes objects aren't the answer to a programming 
problem. For a beginner, having to do all your thinking in objects makes 
learning the basics harder, in my view. Last, there are plenty of good 
(if not great) editors for Python. Pushing an editor that includes 
things as UML is not really very productive for a beginner, and it could 
be argued it not even very useful for advanced programmers (if your 
class hierarchy is s complex that you need (live) UML, you probably have 
too complex of a design.) I do agree with your last sentiment, learn 
lots of languages, Python, Java, C/C++, etc. and see which one(s) meets 
your needs best.

-D