Total rubbish. We must start with a solid grounding in VLSI design and the core principles of modern processor architecture - paying particular attention to pipelining, branch prediction, virtual addressing and shared memory schemes in a multi-core design. Then progress onto raw machine code.
Only after that should something as high-level as C be considered. Anything else is just a slippery slope, before you know it we'll have people expecting to be able to drive without having rebuilt so much as a single engine! </flippancy> On Thursday, 22 December 2011, Fabrizio Giudici wrote: > > Frankly I think that JavaScript as first taught language is a horrible > choice, just as it would be Java. C is still the best option IMHO, but in > the end any traditional language that gets compiled into native code is ok. > Abstraction is good, but only after you've completely understood what's > under the hood. If a language has got a "WOW" factor, it's a very bad > choice as the first taught language. > > -- Kevin Wright mail: [email protected] gtalk / msn : [email protected] quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda <[email protected]> twitter: @thecoda vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright steam: kev_lee_wright "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
