D vs Java

[Georg Wrede]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> 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),

IMHO, it's to do with increasing pressure for "efficiency".
Unfortunately, even universities are facing this to an ever increasing
degree.

As such, I think it is good. But the problem is, politicians never
bother to really get into _what_ efficiency is, so it becomes something
shallow, like graduates per dollar, graduates per year, etc.

What it should be, is more like "what serves the nation (or even
mankind) best". And that certainly is not "watering down curricula" to
get more folks "graduated" faster and cheaper. (Been there, done that.
And I'm ashamed.)

If (e.g.) doubling dollars per graduate (while, say, keeping graduation
time constant) returns even 10% more output during the graduate's
professional life, then I think the nation is a winner, no question. But
try telling that to the politicians!

> but that aside... he said that recently there's been a push from the 
> industry to re-instate C++ as a teaching language

I can understand this. Suppose I had to find 10 top-notch programmers
for a demanding project with a deadline. (And to make the point clearer,
it would be written neither in Java nor C++.) On my desk I have the
applicatons of 20 top of the line CS graduates, half with honors in
Java, half with honors in C++. No question I choose the latter.

Learning Java is so easy that a mediocre person can easily achieve
honors in it. It's just a matter of hard and motivated work. But getting
honors in C++ is way different. To get that, one has to have fought the
idiotic error messages, mastered all kinds of pointer gotchas, never
gotten scared of mounds of intellectually challenging (and still 
useless) trivial obstacles, thoroughly understood (the existence of,
and properties of) the Computer Abstraction of C and C++, etc. And have
repeatedly found productive ways of expressing oneself to the compiler
and computer -- in spite of the language itself! By that time, you're a
Real Programmer Candidate.

> 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.

Half of that is true. The unstated part is, it's way easier to teach
Java to C++ programmers than the other way around, should the need arise.

Heh, mastering C++ should actually be considered a rite of passage.
(Even after D takes over the world!)

> 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.

When I had to choose university, my opinion on Philosophers was
_literally_ "goofballs with their heads in the clouds or clueless
name-droppers"! Too bad. In hindsight, I should've chosen it.