who likes .NET?

[cfanatic]

I do! I was learning C, really enjoyed it, but couldn't really find any uses for it and wanted to create apps for Windows. Switched to VB .NET, and loved it. Already created some useful apps for myself.

I think they should be teaching VB in school, because it is an easy first step into software development.

[phantomotap]

O_O

Well, now that you've mastered "Windows" application you can move to systems programming.

Oh, wait, no, never mind.

Soma

[Elkvis]

I do! I was learning C, really enjoyed it, but couldn't really find any uses for it and wanted to create apps for Windows.

try C++. it's a bigger language, with more to learn, but it's just as powerful as C, and lends itself better to the type of programs you want to write.

I think they should be teaching VB in school, because it is an easy first step into software development.

a lot of schools do teach it. I wouldn't recommend it, personally, because it is a very microsoft-centric technology. in my opinion, programming students should be taught now to solve problems, not concentrate on one platform for writing programs. java and python are excellent candidates for this sort of teaching. they both run on nearly any platform, and have all the capabilities necessary to learn problem solving and programming without focusing on proprietary technology.

[Elysia]

I would agree with everything except Java. Dunno about Python. If you ask me, C++ excels better at what Java tries to do except for GUI programming. Java doesn't even support operator overloading and relies heavily on deducing types at runtime rather than at compile time.

[Elkvis]

Java doesn't even support operator overloading

for the purposes of learning to solve problems with code, this point isn't really important. anything done with an overloaded operator can be done with a normal function. it's just syntactic sugar. on top of that, it's a pretty advanced concept with which beginners need not concern themselves.

and relies heavily on deducing types at runtime rather than at compile time.

again, from the programmer's (and especially the beginner's) perspective, this is a bit of a moot point.

just my opinion.

[Neo1]

I would agree with everything except Java. Dunno about Python. If you ask me, C++ excels better at what Java tries to do except for GUI programming. Java doesn't even support operator overloading and relies heavily on deducing types at runtime rather than at compile time.

Java is (in my experience) usually used to teach OOP in most CS programs. C++ wouldn't be a good alternative for this purpose. C++ has a boatload of non-OOP features and functionality which students would have to learn before they could get to the point, with Java it is simply a matter of getting the JDK installed, and then you're ready to go.

[Elysia]

OOP is overrated. It's not the one solution for all.
And while I can't argue that there are some things at which Java is easier, C++ is getting closer to there without sacrificing flexibility or power.
TBH, I think it's more in the line of thinking that C++ is outdated and that Java, C#, etc are the future.
C++ offers a good entry language for learning several paradigms all at once. Java is only OOP, and OOP isn't everything.
I think honestly that there is too little covered on verification. Software is generally just too sloppily written. Techniques such as preconditions, code analysis are not used enough. But take that to the extreme: to get better code analysis, you need stronger type system, and that's certainly not an area where Java excels.
*shrug* Anyway, we can continue debate semantics if we want. I don't think there is any best language to teach, but I don't like Java, and that's just my opinion.

[Neo1]

OOP is overrated. It's not the one solution for all.

I agree, but would you go as far as to say that there shouldn't be a course on OOP in a CS program at all? I wouldn't.

C++ offers a good entry language for learning several paradigms all at once. Java is only OOP, and OOP isn't everything.

C++ is a horrible entry language if your goal is to learn OOP, and just OOP. The standard library is tiny compared to almost any other language, you'd have to learn pointers which isn't something you can cover in one lesson and then expect everyone to understand it, unless the course is placed a few years in. Also you'd have to waste time with things such as the preprocessor, not to mention memory management which has little/nothing to do with OOP.

With Java, you get to start doing OOP right away, no prerequisites.

I think honestly that there is too little covered on verification. Software is generally just too sloppily written. Techniques such as preconditions, code analysis are not used enough. But take that to the extreme: to get better code analysis, you need stronger type system, and that's certainly not an area where Java excels.

Sure, but those topics do not belong in an OOP course.

[phantomotap]

Java is (in my experience) usually used to teach OOP in most CS programs.

O_o

"OOP" is just a buzzword umbrella for a lot of techniques. Many of these techniques are universal.

I think you mean inheritance based polymorphisms which is just one, of may, ways to implement those techniques.

In that face, how to go about using inheritance based polymorphisms to implement them is language specific so Python is probably easier to use when focusing purely on the techniques themselves. I certainly wouldn't recommend Java or C++ if the focus is on the technique and not the implementation.

That said, I blame schools for teaching "OMG! OOPS!" instead of just techniques, and I blame the use of Java, which forces a lot of that on the programmer, on that mindset.

OOP is overrated.

O_O

-_-


O_O

-_-


O_O

-_-

Did Elysia just say that?

>_<

Have I had a stroke?

Soma

[Neo1]

"OOP" is just a buzzword umbrella for a lot of techniques. Many of these techniques are universal.

I think you mean inheritance based polymorphisms which is just one, of may, ways to implement those techniques.

In that face, how to go about using inheritance based polymorphisms to implement them is language specific so Python is probably easier to use when focusing purely on the techniques themselves. I certainly wouldn't recommend Java or C++ if the focus is on the technique and not the implementation.

That said, I blame schools for teaching "OMG! OOPS!" instead of just techniques, and I blame the use of Java, which forces a lot of that on the programmer, on that mindset.

I cannot comment on Python, since i don't know it. However i'd say the real problem with Java are the schools where Java is taught almost exclusively, and used in many other courses aside from just the regular OOP-course. In regards to technique vs. implementation, i think Java is clearly superior to C++ for students who have had no prior exposure to any programming, as a way to learn OOP (or "inheritance based polymorphisms") C++ makes you deal with a lot of things that has nothing to do with OOP, Java doesn't.

[Elysia]

I agree, but would you go as far as to say that there shouldn't be a course on OOP in a CS program at all? I wouldn't.

No. OOP is an important paradigm, but not the only important one.
It is better to teach students a mix of paradigms instead of focusing on one. Therefore, there shouldn't be an OOP course. There should be a programming course that teaches techniques instead of paradigms.

C++ is a horrible entry language if your goal is to learn OOP, and just OOP. The standard library is tiny compared to almost any other language, you'd have to learn pointers which isn't something you can cover in one lesson and then expect everyone to understand it, unless the course is placed a few years in. Also you'd have to waste time with things such as the preprocessor, not to mention memory management which has little/nothing to do with OOP.

Packages aren't OOP. Why bother with those when learning Java if they aren't OOP?
Point is, there are always things not related to OOP that you are going to have to learn regardless of language you learn. You don't have to go into depth about it, just enough for the common cases (such as including headers).
Memory management is always an important topic regardless of language. Yes, it may be a little more complex in C++ (but not that much), but remember that things such as circular references exist in Java, as well as in C++.

With Java, you get to start doing OOP right away, no prerequisites.

Sure, but those topics do not belong in an OOP course.

And let's stop focusing purely on OOP... there are so many other good paradigms out there... OOP is just one of them.

[laserlight]

C++ is a horrible entry language if your goal is to learn OOP, and just OOP.

If a rank beginner's goal is to learn OOP, and just OOP, then I would strongly recommend that that newbie re-think his/her goals. The entry programming language should be a medium by which the beginner can start on the journey of programming, i.e., learning how to solve problems by programming. This means learning how to gather and interpret requirements, learning about algorithms and data structures, how to express the algorithms in code, and how to test and debug, and maybe more. OOP can be a component tool in the toolbox, but if that is the sole focus of a beginner, then that beginner is misguided.

With Java, you get to start doing OOP right away, no prerequisites.

That is a myth where most rank beginners are concerned. Boilerplate code that involves defining a class by rote is hardly OOP in character.

Sure, but those topics do not belong in an OOP course.

An "OOP course" does not belong in an introductory programming syllabus.

[Neo1]

No. OOP is an important paradigm, but not the only important one.

Agreed.

It is better to teach students a mix of paradigms instead of focusing on one. Therefore, there shouldn't be an OOP course. There should be a programming course that teaches techniques instead of paradigms.

Well that's an entirely different discussion. I have no position on that, i think a single semester to learn OOP, functional programming and procedural programming might be a bit on the low side, but it might work i guess.

Packages aren't OOP. Why bother with those when learning Java if they aren't OOP?
Point is, there are always things not related to OOP that you are going to have to learn regardless of language you learn. You don't have to go into depth about it, just enough for the common cases (such as including headers).
Memory management is always an important topic regardless of language. Yes, it may be a little more complex in C++ (but not that much), but remember that things such as circular references exist in Java, as well as in C++.

Okay, so the package system is one thing students will have to pick up on before diving in. My point isn't that Java is perfect, it's just a lot better than C++ in this regard.

And let's stop focusing purely on OOP... there are so many other good paradigms out there... OOP is just one of them.

It makes sense to focus purely OOP, when we are talking about learning OOP.

[Neo1]

If a rank beginner's goal is to learn OOP, and just OOP, then I would strongly recommend that that newbie re-think his/her goals.

That is the reality that most if not all new CS students are faced with. I never said it was a good idea.

The entry programming language should be a medium by which the beginner can start on the journey of programming, i.e., learning how to solve problems by programming. This means learning how to gather and interpret requirements, learning about algorithms and data structures, how to express the algorithms in code, and how to test and debug, and maybe more. OOP can be a component tool in the toolbox, but if that is the sole focus of a beginner, then that beginner is misguided.

Certainly.

An "OOP course" does not belong in an introductory programming syllabus.

I have yet to hear of a CS program that does not feature a course on object oriented design/programming as either the first or second course.

[Elysia]

It makes sense to focus purely OOP, when we are talking about learning OOP.

Since when? It was about learning Java vs C++ at first.