|
I got an entire degree in Computer Science and there wasn't a word about the debugger...
Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Most of my education and early career were on VAX/VMS where the debugger is near impossible to use.
We did use Turbo Pascal a bit as well, which was nice.
Not having a usable debugger leads to a better developer with better debugging skills. A debugger is a course of last resort.
|
|
|
|
|
We hadn't had a debugger too - but we did learned about the ideas and how to implement and use them (in code) to debug the behavior of our app...
“Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
|
|
|
|
|
Uh... VB.NET is very much a "real" language.
Though I am completely fluent on C#, I prefer working on VB.NET, which can do anything the C# language can do without all the extra complexity that C# has been introducing.
Both C# and VB.NET, along with every other .NET language, all compile to the CLR and generate the same executable code.
I don't know why people keep on saying that VB.NET is not a "real" language except for the fact that they do not like to [program in it. That is fine. But it is best to remember that there is no such thing as an "unreal" language...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
I am curious as to why you do not consider VB a "real language".
That is like saying that - for example - German or Italian or Swahili or Punjabi are not real languages. I am actually and currently fluent in five different spoken languages -- and yet it would never occur to me that a language I do not speak or use is not a "real language".
Point is: let's all stop making these silly arguments about a programming language or the other. Statements of that kind they only serve to reveal an elitist approach or a deep misunderstanding of the language's purpose.
Plenty of excellent and successful developers grew up with Basic, Visual Basic, VB.NET... only to transition to other languages because of many different reasons... just NOT because those languages are not "real languages". I wonder what would you even say about ASM... 
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Second (or third, or whatever--grunching)
|
|
|
|
|
Scratch[^] remains my choice for so many reasons, mainly because learning about sw engineering is not about learning a programming language, but learning about programming theory.
Then C# is a good high level language to start with. As would by Python.
I started with assembler, and this taught me far more than programming : a lot of computer architecture knowledge, which I still find useful today.
|
|
|
|
|
Scratch is good, especially for elementary age learners, some adults too. My wife was (retired now) the gifted teacher at an elementary school and was given the edict to teach about robotics and programming. She was able to learn then teach Scratch to her kids. They took off on it, as you would expect with gifted kids.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
Never heard of Scratch. What exactly is it? Is it a visual learning tool?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is a visual learning tool - you can pseudo-code using blocks, it is quite good to grasp basics of software development.
Take my link above and give it a try if you have a couple of minutes, it is quite straight forward.
|
|
|
|
|
language is not that important.
It's the manner it is taught that is more important.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
There is a beginner programming language called Karel from Stanford University. Which I got to know from this course Stanford Engineering Everywhere | CS106A - Programming Methodology[^]
The language itself is very simple with about twenty or so commands. But the process of problem solving using these 20 commands is what the school student learning is all about.
So according to me, it is Karel.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not. Even basic concepts require teaching too much about syntax. I'd actually start with Python and cover the basics of data types, functions, and objects. Yes, I know many people hate the indentation but it's common in functional programming languages and is visually simpler than nested curly braces, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
It used to be Pascal; then Java. Not a big leap to C#. The (NET) "framework" elevates it to a platform versus a simple language. They won't hit any walls.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
It's not; it hinges on the concept of OO. Objects are hard conceptually, classing variables and methods into logical entities.
For a kid, I'd recommend procedural languages; I did AMOS growing up, a kind of basic. It allowed to write instructions and play with parameters, and soon I started on my own Eliza-clone (which is totally doable in Basic and a fun exercise).
Problems arose when my I got pages worth of procedures, largely copy/pasted. At that time, I was ready for OO and inheritance.
Teach her a procedural language and things that give quick reward. Once she knows about variables and procedures, give her a challenge that requires too much writing, and after a day or three, introduce OO and inheritance.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: For a kid, I'd recommend procedural languages; I did AMOS growing up, a kind of basic. It allowed to write instructions and play with parameters, and soon I started on my own Eliza-clone (which is totally doable in Basic and a fun exercise).
This!
Start the class with Notepad, command line compilation, and console applications. No IDE, no GUI, no classes. Just learning to think logically and solve problems. C# will work for this, but I'd probably use something different.
My sons took programming-type classes in high school and college -- they spent more time making pretty output than they did making correct output. This was typical for these classes.
Folks often think of OO as the Holy Grail. It's not -- I've dealt with far more badly designed class structures than I have badly designed procedural programs. When the only available tool is a hammer, everything look like a nail.
|
|
|
|
|
When teaching, I'd like to first introduce programming as a list of instructions.
Architecture and concepts can wait until they enjoy it 
BryanFazekas wrote: Folks often think of OO as the Holy Grail. It's not
I'm one of those; but starting there is not for most people. First you learn about methods and variables. Once you run into the limits of those, OO starts making sense. Before that, it seems a bit.. nonsense that you just do because everyone else does it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Any language would be good to teach programming. It may be difficult to really stick with the basics with C#, not only because of the syntactic sugar, but also because of in-built functions. You can also argue against using Visual Studio or PyCharm or JetBrains as a beginner's IDE. They are a bit too helpful at times and there is nothing better than learning by oneself (even if it is very slow). Eclipse may be a good choice (or maybe VS Code), wouldn't go as far as text-editor only, like Vim.
|
|
|
|
|
It's certainly not bad. You can do low-overhead programs in C# just like you can do in Python (which, I presume, is what they're doing for teaching purposes), you can go fully-blown structure like you'd do in Java. Speaking of structure, C# is well-structured and allows learning concepts without delving too much into the implementation. Which is, as far as I'm concerned, a good way to learn such things. Too many co-workers of mine tend to get lost in the details, missing the big picture, as if they never learned to think outside of low-level details...
|
|
|
|
|
As C# includes many features that you also have in C++ and C, you could use C# as a language for absolute beginners, as long as you start with a very small subset of everything that's possible in C#. No lambda expressions, no null propagation, no classes, no properties etc., just some loops and branches, and maybe some functions. And then you can slowly work your way up to the more advanced features.
|
|
|
|
|
I would recommend it. If they offer it in the school, probably they know how to teach it.
But the other questions are for all programming languages they teach:
Do they teach it right, whatever it is?
Do they teach it the way, to be open to use other languages or whatever language you choose, would you be taught that it is the only and best language?
You can try it yourself that it is easy Hello World - Introduction to C# interactive C# tutorial | Microsoft Docs[^] and surprise your daughter with your knowledge or be step ahead?
|
|
|
|
|
Vaso Elias wrote: If they offer it in the school, probably they know how to teach it.
You are probably live in an utopian state... 
“Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
|
|
|
|
|
Vaso Elias wrote: I would recommend it. If they offer it in the school, probably they know how to teach it.
Not necessarily. I recall a couple of classes where the instructor was learning the material a day ahead of teaching it, and a lot of the professors had no idea how to teach.
Many moons ago a coworker did a tech interview for a college professor who wanted to leave academia and get into consulting. She failed the tech interview in a language she had been teaching for 5 years. She could explain language syntax, but had no idea how to program anything of any complexity.
|
|
|
|
|
I had the same experience myself when I was studying at university, however we had also teachers who knew way too much and they did teach us lot
There are always good and experienced teachers and then those who need to work more on their teaching skills .
|
|
|
|
|
My second thought was that I might be very biased (and so less right) since my first thought was "any other choice would be a mistake".
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
