Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #14315 > unrolled thread

Re: Teaching kids to program (in Java)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Teaching kids to program (in Java) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-05 20:13 -0400
    Re: Teaching kids to program (in Java) Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-05-06 12:06 +0000
      Re: Teaching kids to program (in Java) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-05-06 11:38 -0400

#14315 — Re: Teaching kids to program (in Java)

On 4/13/2012 10:08 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk>  wrote:
>
> (snip, someone wrote)
>>>>> In my not particularly humble opinion, Java is too crufty to make for
>>>>> a good _introductory_ language. There are too many old sins and too
>>>>> many idiosyncrasies in the language that are likely to confuse or
>>>>> stump someone who doesn't already know how to program.
>
> (snip, then I wrote)
>>>> Compared to what?
>
> (and also wrote)
>>>> How about Fortran or C?
>
>>> It's been too long since I worked with Fortran and I don't know
>>> anything about the modern Fortrans, so I can't say. Possibly for
>>> students who already works with matrices in math, but I suspect that
>>> for those cases Matlab (or something similar) would be a better match.
>
> My first language, mostly, was IBM Fortran IV, Fortran 66 with some
> useful extensions. Much has been added since, including the most
> recent 2008 standard. Fortran 66 is relatively simple, but with
> some strange features left from earlier systems. Still, I didn't
> have much trouble learning it during the summer before 9th grade.
> (The IBM reference manual was my 8th grade graduation present.)

I started with Fortran V aka 77.

Still a simple language and maybe even easier to learn than IV/66.

>>> I think the core language of C is small enough that it might work
>>> well, as long as the course is targetting low-level hardware (such as
>>> an Arduino board) rather than desktop I/O.
>
>> C is rather simple.
>
> It is, but you have to understand pointers earlier than with
> most other languages.

True.

>> But explaining what is going on with incorrect programs
>> is not so fun.
>
> Well, many languages have that problem, in many strange ways.

But languages that allow memory overwrites can be really nasty.

>> Medium size language with huge standard library.
>
>> I would say less quirks than most languages.
>
> The library is big, but with a small subset you can do the usual
> things that beginning programmers need to do.

java.lang, java.io and java.util could bring one a good
step forward.

Arne

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14334

On Sat, 05 May 2012 20:13:54 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 4/13/2012 10:08 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>
>> The library is big, but with a small subset you can do the usual things
>> that beginning programmers need to do.
> 
> java.lang, java.io and java.util could bring one a good step forward.
>
java.lang and java.util are fine, but java.io has always struck me as 
needlessly quirky. Coming, as I did, from an assembler/C/Algol/COBOL 
background it was by far the most difficult part of Java to get my head 
round. 
   

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14337

On 5/6/2012 8:06 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 20:13:54 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 10:08 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>>
>>> The library is big, but with a small subset you can do the usual things
>>> that beginning programmers need to do.
>>
>> java.lang, java.io and java.util could bring one a good step forward.
>>
> java.lang and java.util are fine, but java.io has always struck me as
> needlessly quirky. Coming, as I did, from an assembler/C/Algol/COBOL
> background it was by far the most difficult part of Java to get my head
> round.

It is certainly very different from older languages.

But many newer languages seems to have taken similar routes.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web