D vs Java

[Sean Kelly]

Georg Wrede wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> 
>> Frankly I really don't see D as much better/simpler than Java for the 
>> purposes of a first language.
> 
> This might sound offending, condescending, patronising and whatever, but:
> 
> Learning to program (in school/university, vs. on your own) does contain 
> issues one never notices. The choice of language, the "scene" at the 
> time, the predicted future of the students (and of course what they 
> never tell you: access to knowledgeable teachers in the various 
> choices), all do play a role. The faculty (hopefully) makes a choice 
> genuinely based _only_ on their combined experience which (in the best 
> case) might today be like n * 30 years, n being the number of professors 
> participating in the decision.

Oddly, this topic came up at SDWest as well--someone asked Bjarne how he 
felt about universities switching from C++ to Java as a teaching 
language.  He said that this change often coincided with a general 
"watering down" of the curriculum (to something more suitable for a BA 
program, I assume), but that aside... he said that recently there's been 
a push from the industry to re-instate C++ as a teaching language 
because it's used far more broadly than Java and companies wanted 
graduates to have experience in the language they were likely to use 
professionally.  Apparently, Texas A&M just switched from Java back to 
C++, though there's no saying whether this has anything to do with 
Bjarne teaching there.

> Back to Philosoply, Law, or theoretical Physics, these folks need some 
> rigor to their thinking. Early on. And such rigor is very hard to teach 
> without a tool that only accepts correct thinking and punishes you for 
> anything vague. (Rigor being just another tool in their chest, by no 
> means the master.)

I like that you group Philosophy in with Theoretical Physics.  Most 
people seem to think Philosophers are all either goofballs with their 
heads in the clouds or clueless name-droppers.


Sean