His intentions are not to flame, but to save a fellow user from following terrible advice. It is terrible advice, by the way.

Don't be like me Fawar. Go with the flow~

You might like to follow MIT cursus, but personnally starting with higher language without understanding what's going on below isn't the best most efficient way to become fluid in many language.

It's always easier to start with more abstract language because they actually do alot more for you and simplify the logic the most. Doing so, does not let the ''student'' learn everything, except if he decides to make real researches on the subject but for that he need to know the question which python won't give him.
Who would ask about memory management when starting with python? Nobody, since none of them would know that this exist and is made by the compiler.
C++ is harder, but you will learn alot more than python might teach you. As said earlier, C++ will alow you to learn C# and Java in no time since it is similar. In fact, both of these are based on it and implemented support for major hindrance of C++ such as the famous memory management/garbage collector. Should you take that everything you do in higher language is possible in lower ones, but the other way around is not always true.

Yeah... no. Just no.

So where have you got so much knowledge in computer science? I doubt you were an MIT student.

yea umm no lol. there is no need to go into such depth for a first language after all a first language is supposed to be the introductory steps to programming. there is no need to learn about memory management and garbage collection in such a stage. python or ruby is really a good way to go. then tbh i would go c/asm.

also how does a lower level language simplify logic? id hate to see a beginner indulge in heavy pointer math to manipulate a CSTRING.

also why not just go with asm if you want to learn low level programming. you can specfically call mmap and such to allocate your memory to a pointer and push it to the stack fpor later use! and hell you can even create variable macros to make it seem like a higher language!

I actually did one class on ASM, never again. Did you know that Roller Coaster Tycoon was written in ASM?

C++ can be easily sperated in 3 parts and it does make it easy to learn

Procedural
Memory Management
Object Oriented

It has flow and everything fit perfectly one after the other.

This post was edited by Fawar on Dec 3 2012 03:46pm

I generally don't care much for talking about my background, since facts and knowledge speak for themselves with no need for any credentials to back them up.

But since you bring it up... I taught that class when it first came out in 2006. Or at least a part of it.

Your move.

This post was edited by irimi on Dec 3 2012 03:53pm

Well im not that old. I'm actually doing a 4 years of software engineering which i have done half of it. What i say is based on my university's cursus.

Well you should have learned that facts and knowledges are based on proofs and references.

Most college CS programs are crap. They're poorly structured and laden with an overbearing focus on application, so their students end up learning specific skills rather than learning how to learn. I can guarantee you that by the virtue of your university using C++ as the vehicle for teaching programming, it falls under this category.

The good universities with good CS programs realize that language is mostly irrelevant, other than the fact that simpler, more abstract languages mean less impedance for learning the higher-level concepts that actually matter. This is why places MIT/UCB don't teach their introductory courses using C++ (and up until a few years ago, used Scheme instead of Python).

Language is treated as a tool, and nothing more. The focus isn't and shouldn't be on memory management, pointers, syntax, or other basic things that even a computer can do, but instead on problem solving, abstract thinking, and adaptability to ever-changing situations. This is why everything you've said up to this point should be wholly and thoroughly ignored.

All of this has been beaten like a dead horse in the thread I linked above. It's your failure for not picking that up, not mine for not providing "proofs and references" that are put right in front of your face.

This post was edited by irimi on Dec 3 2012 04:11pm